House of Commons - Science and Technology

Select Committee on Science and Technology Second Report

SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS

We find the evidence that the century date change presents a genuine risk of malfunction in automated systems which have a date function overwhelmingly convincing (paragraph 5).

The combination of the immutable deadline, the worldwide context and complex inter-dependencies makes managing the century date change "a challenge without precedent" (paragraph 9).

We find it incontrovertible that, in the absence of adequate remedial action to address the century date change problem, there would be a significant negative impact on the UK's future economic performance (paragraph 16).

We conclude that the century date change problem could, if not solved, cause severe difficulties in many critical public services (paragraph 19).

We recommend that central Government departments' and agencies' plans and progress be presented in a common format which allows for inevitable variations in the ways in which they are managing their Year 2000 programmes; and, to simplify the process of monitoring progress, a checklist should be developed, setting staged objectives and target dates, against which such reports could be judged (paragraph 24).

We recommend that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster publish departmental and agency plans and progress reports in conventional format as well as on the Internet (paragraph 25).

We recommend that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster reports to the House at the time of his quarterly reports on the state of readiness in departments and agencies through an oral, rather than written, statement (paragraph 26).

We recommend the same level of reporting on Year 2000 plans and progress for local authorities and other public bodies as we are suggesting for central Government departments and its agencies, for the same reasons. This should be organised centrally, through the relevant central Government department, with plans published and regular reports to Parliament. We further recommend that the Audit Commission and the Accounts Commission continue to monitor the millennium readiness projects of those parts of the public sector over which they have jurisdiction just as the National Audit Office does in respect of central Government (paragraph 27).

We congratulate the Health and Safety Executive for the robust approach it has taken in respect of high risk sites (paragraph 34).

We would have hoped that, with less than 90 weeks left before the millennium and the strong possibility of failures in systems before then, the Health and Safety Executive had raised awareness in all lower risk sites. We recommend that the Health and Safety Executive ensure that all such sites are made aware immediately of the problems which the century date change might cause and their responsibilities to make their systems compliant (paragraph 35).

We recommend that the Government ensure that each regulatory body is fully seized of the implications of the Year 2000 problem for the sectors they regulate and is promoting effective and timely remedial action on the part of individual organisations. We further recommend that each Government department produce regular reports to Parliament on the Year 2000 related activities of the regulatory bodies they sponsor (paragraph 36).

We conclude that organisations should not consider legal action as a primary remedy to Year 2000 problems but as a last resort and should not plan to enter litigation in preference to taking preventative action now. We strongly believe that this is a message which Action 2000 should promulgate widely and loudly (paragraph 40).

The risk of legal action on the part of those affected by century date related failures reinforces the need for all organisations to undertake thorough Year 2000 preparations to ensure that their systems, products and services are millennium ready. It should also be seen as a reason to keep thorough and accurate records of all remedial measures in case called upon by the courts to demonstrate that all reasonable steps to avoid system failures were taken (paragraph 41).

The Prime Minister has taken a lead in raising the profile of the century date change problem. We welcome this. The leading role adopted by the Prime Minister needs to be supported by a coherent, well-structured programme. We look to Action 2000, the Cabinet sub-committee (MISC 4) and the newly created central team in the Cabinet Office to provide this (paragraph 42).

We recommend that the Government ensure that financial constraints do not prevent the public sector achieving millennium readiness especially where safety-critical systems are involved (paragraph 45).

We recommend that if, at the next quarterly review, any department or agency is shown to have fallen further behind the timetable, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and the CITU should instigate a thorough analysis of that department's Year 2000 programme and assist it to identify and prioritise its key systems (paragraph 47).

We recommend that each Secretary of State should review the millennium readiness programmes of the departments and public bodies they sponsor. We further recommend that the results of these reviews should be made available, as a supplement to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster's quarterly reports, so that they can both be scrutinised by experts and serve to reassure the public that adequate precautions are being taken (paragraph 48).

We remain concerned that progress in the National Health Service compared with other parts of the public sector appears slow: for instance, trusts were not required to provide full costings for readiness programmes until 31st March 1998 whereas central Government departments and agencies provided costings six months earlier. It is essential to guarantee that the National Health Service is fully prepared to manage the century date change (paragraph 51).

We recommend that progress reports on contingency planning for central departments and agencies should form an explicit part of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster's quarterly reviews and further that such reporting should be mirrored by all Ministers in respect of the public bodies which their departments sponsor (paragraph 53).

We recommend that Action 2000 develop a standard checklist to enable businesses to report progress in a common form as a matter of priority (paragraph 62).

Another means of reaching businesses directly would be to include information leaflets in telephone or other utility bills which are delivered to the vast majority of Small and Medium-sized Enterprises. We recommend that Action 2000 treat stimulating action on the part of Small and Medium-sized Enterprises with the highest priority and that it works with the Business Link network and other organisations in close contact with Small and Medium-sized Enterprises to ensure that its message is not only sent but received. (paragraph 63).

We do not accept that it is right to charge for upgrades necessitated by non-compliance of existing equipment. Depending upon the age of the current system and the terms under which it was supplied, companies have an obligation to provide suitable upgrades or replacements free of charge (paragraph 64).

While it is important that each organisation develop its own contingency plans, there is a role for Government to ensure that alternative arrangements are in place should there be any interruption in the ability of providers of essential public services to deliver (paragraph 66).

We recommend that trading standards officers should monitor use of the Millennium Safe logo and that suppliers found using the logo on non-compliant equipment should be penalised (paragraph 69).

We make below recommendations for a high profile advertising campaign on the part of Action 2000 (see recommendation bb). We recommend that the Millennium Safe scheme is an integral part of that campaign (paragraph 70).

We recommend that Action 2000 treat the dissemination of best practice as a key part of its campaign to stimulate organisations to take effective remedial action (paragraph 71).

We recommend that the Government conduct audits in sample homes to test for millennium readiness in order to establish public confidence (paragraph 72).

We recommend that Action 2000 conduct a high profile campaign disseminating widely, in clear and non-technical terms, the information needed to test domestic equipment for millennium compliance (paragraph 73).

We endorse the Government's decision to put the matter on the agenda of various international summits, including this year's G8 meeting and the recent Europe-Asia summit. (paragraph 74).

We recommend that the Government continue to take every opportunity to raise century date change issues with foreign Governments and to put the matter firmly on the agenda with our neighbours and trading partners all around the world (paragraph 74).

We are concerned that developing countries' attempts to achieve millennium readiness should not be compromised by the provision of non-millennium compliant equipment from the UK (paragraph 76).

We recommend that the need for prioritisation should be a central feature of the advice Action 2000 delivers (paragraph 77).

We recommend that Action 2000 increase the profile and reach of its Millennium Bug Campaign. A campaign of the scale of 'Aids Awareness' in the 1980s or the more recent Inland Revenue 'Self Assessment' information campaign would be appropriate (paragraph 78).

We welcome that: most companies will have to report on their year 2000 status at least once, and many twice, before the millennium. (paragraph 80).

We recommend that Action 2000 commission a quarterly survey on progress in the business sector, broken down into categories including core services such as transport, telecommunications and other critical public services. We further recommend that the results of the survey be publicly and freely available (paragraph 81).

We agree that it is important to keep demand for system changes down to a minimum (paragraph 86).



© Parliamentary copyright 1998	Prepared 7 April 1998