| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Christopher Chope (Christchurch): I am grateful to the President of the Council for her statement on the findings of the Government's fifth quarterly review of progress--or should I say slippage?--in tackling the millennium bug. Will she confirm that it describes the situation as it is today and is not an historical statement referring to forms filled in by Departments many weeks ago?
Today's announcement shows that the Government are breathtakingly complacent in the face of their own failure. While they continue to fail to meet their own previously published deadlines, they have the gall to preach to the private sector on the subject. They inherited a golden legacy of action and preparation from the Conservatives. My hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr. Taylor) had set a deadline for all Departments to be millennium compliant by the end of December 1998.
The previous report showed that the United Kingdom had slipped from first to eighth position under the Labour Government. Can the President of the Council confirm that the United Kingdom is once again leading the field in year 2000 preparedness, as it was in May 1997?
The right hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark), when Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, said:
The President of the Council promised three months ago that all Departments and agencies would have business continuity and contingency plans in place by the end of January. Today, she has told us only that most Departments have them in place. What is the reason for the failure to meet that deadline? Will she ensure that the plans, once produced, are made available for public scrutiny and placed in the Library?
With the millennium fewer than 300 days away, has the time not come for more targeted reports? I welcome the announcement that there will be more frequent reports. Will the President of the Council expand on the nature of those reports, especially in the light of her statement, which gives a worrying picture of the state of preparedness in the police and fire services and in part of the health service?
Will the Government offer a millennium guarantee, that everything in the public sector will work properly on 1 January 2000? If things go wrong in the public sector, who is to be held to account? Will the President of the Council publish a list of Ministers and officials who will be in line for the plaudits or criticisms arising from their Y2K preparedness?
Who is to be held accountable in local government? Will the President of the Council arrange for all critical systems to have live testing before the millennium, as was suggested by several organisations, including the Federation of Small Businesses? Will she advise private business and individuals how much they should spend on their contingency plans? It is one thing to draw up a plan, but another to decide, on a risk assessment, how much should be invested in it.
In April 1998, the Prime Minister said:
Mrs. Beckett:
Oh, dear. I had hoped that there was a vague chance of an intelligent response from the Conservative Front Bench, but that was clearly a mistake.
I will begin where the hon. Gentleman ended. He asked who should be held to account if anything goes wrong, and I will tell him. I am not in the business of dishing out blame, and I pay tribute to the work done by the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr. Taylor). He did a great deal--although nothing like enough, because his Government colleagues showed no interest in his work. We picked up not a golden legacy, but a neglected baton and trebled, at least, the work that was being done. If anybody will be held to account, it will be those who were in government in 1994, 1995 and 1996, when the issues should first have been dealt with.
With the honourable exception of the hon. Member for Esher and Walton, nobody in the Conservative party wanted to know. If we are going to dish out blame, it belongs to the Conservative Government. We did not come to power until May 1997, and anybody who knows anything about the subject knows that that was very late in the day to tackle the issues.
Having listened to the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope), I can conclude only that he knows nothing about the subject. I am surprised, because he has asked some moderately intelligent questions about it in his time, but he clearly has not listened to any of the answers. He made the throwaway remark that Britain had slipped from first to eighth in the international league tables, but, if he knew anything about the subject and had read any of the answers that he had received from us or anyone else, he would know that those league tables are worthless. If a country that knows little or cares nothing about the issue responds by saying that it is doing well--because it does not recognise the problem--it soars up the league table. Everybody knows that the league tables are worthless.
I share the regret of the hon. Member for Christchurch that not all Departments have, as instructed, business continuity plans in place. Most have, and those that have not are being actively pursued. As for advice for the private sector, I thought that the Conservatives were against the nanny state. It is not for me to tell those in the private sector what judgment they should make about their preparedness or what they should spend. It is for us to urge them to take the necessary action, and that we are doing.
We have considered the suggestions that have been made for live testing, including those from someone on the Conservative Benches whom I respect, the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson). However, such testing would consume enormous amounts of time and resources and would be a diversion from work on tackling the issues. For that reason, it has not been pursued by the Government or by most other organisations that have studied the matter.
I have told the hon. Member for Christchurch before that this statement has not been deferred for two weeks. The previous statement was a week early in the cycle. Last week, the statement would have coincided with the Budget and we thought, on balance, that the House would probably prefer to give the Budget a higher priority.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether we could give a millennium guarantee that nothing will go wrong. Only someone who was not paying attention or does not care tuppence about the importance of understanding the issue would even ask such a silly question, let alone expect an answer to it.
Mr. Brian White (Milton Keynes, North-East):
As someone who has already suffered from the millennium bug when using a Microsoft product, I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement. Many local authorities have made progress, but some have not. Has my right hon. Friend considered secondments from those authorities that have made progress or using Government officers to help local authorities to make more progress? I was very concerned by my right hon. Friend's comments about the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. In particular, many third- world countries will suffer if supply chains--many of which are just in time now--break down. What is being done to ensure that the third world does not suffer because of the millennium bug? The Soviet fleet contains computers that are non-compliant and I would be worried if the Ministry of Defence were not talking to its Russian counterparts about the issue.
My right hon. Friend said that she would introduce more frequent reports from June. Given that, on 1 April, in 15 days' time, the year 2000 financial year will start, will she start those more frequent reports from the cycle onwards?
Mrs. Beckett:
I share my hon. Friend's concern, as we all do, that there has not been more progress in local government, and we are working closely with the Audit Commission, which is considering that matter. We are considering issues such as secondments from Government offices, and we are strongly encouraging those in local government who lag behind to learn from the best practice of the leaders in the field. The Audit Commission has said that, in or around June, it will publish the particulars of authorities that are not responding well enough to encouragement.
"I am now able to confirm that all Departments and agencies have work in hand and scheduled for completion in time--many by December 1998, a majority by March 1999 and a small number later in 1999."--[Official Report, 27 November 1997; Vol. 301, c. 1104.]
Today, in March 1999, we learn that fewer than half the Departments have even completed their work on business-critical systems--what a disappointing outcome--and that only 10 Departments met the Conservative deadline of completing all millennium compliance work by December 1998.
"By treating this as an emergency we can make Britain one of the world's best prepared countries."
Can we be satisfied that the Government are really treating this as an emergency, when the statement has been delayed by a fortnight and relegated to third priority in today's business? I assure the House that Her Majesty's Opposition will continue to hold the Government to account and responsible for Y2K failure, if and when it comes.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |