HC Deb 16 March 1999 vol 327 cc915-28

5.6 pm

The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett)

I am announcing today the results of the fifth quarterly review of progress in tackling the millennium bug for Government Departments, agencies and key parts of the wider public sector. I have arranged for all completed questionnaires to be placed in the Libraries of the House and published on the internet. To allow people to see at a glance how well individual Departments and agencies are doing, I shall also be publishing tables illustrating their performance against a number of key criteria.

Good progress continues to be made by central Government as a whole. The majority of bodies covered by the exercise are near to completing their correction programmes. Almost half the Departments and agencies have completed their work on business-critical information technology systems, which means that the problems have been fixed, the fix has been tested and the system is back in operation. Progress on business-critical embedded and telecommunications systems is equally good. On that basis, we expect that most Departments will have finished work on their business-critical systems by July. Ten bodies—although admittedly smaller ones—report that have already completed all their correction work on critical and non-critical systems. I am also pleased by the continued progress of the Department of Social Security, the Employment Service, the Department of Health and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport.

Costs remain relatively stable. The total estimate for central Government Departments and agencies stands at just over £420 million—a 2.5 per cent. increase on the previous quarter.

I am pleased to report that the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency, the Inland Revenue and the Medicines Control Agency, which I named in my previous statement, have made significant improvements over the past quarter.

Slippage continues to be apparent in other cases, although most are minor adjustments of a month or two in the first half of this year. However, I have a number of specific concerns about departmental programmes, including that of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, although I acknowledge the unique difficulties that it faces in operating around the world. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary assures me that the serious resources that the FCO is devoting to its year 2000 programme and relevant system upgrades will ensure that it is year 2000 compliant worldwide in time. I have written to colleagues to express those concerns and will continue to monitor progress closely.

The armed forces continue to make good progress in dealing with the bug. The Ministry of Defence expects that the Royal Navy, Army and Royal Air Force front-line units will be compliant by late summer. However, there remains no room for slippage in the large and complex defence programme. I am providing more detailed information on the Ministry of Defence's programme in a separate section of the tables that I am publishing today.

I am pleased to report that work is also now well under way on business continuity planning. Departments are looking at the impact of possible bug-related failures— in their systems and in key organisations in their supply chain—on their ability to continue to deliver key services. Most Departments and agencies have initial business continuity plans in place. Those that do not are required to produce one as a matter of urgency. Those initial plans will be developed and tested over the year. Details of progress in developing initial plans are available in the published returns.

All but five Departments and agencies have had some form of additional assessment of their programmes, either by internal auditors or by external experts. Of the remainder, all have plans in place for such assessments.

In the wider public sector, the returns for British Nuclear Fuels, the BBC, National Air Traffic Services, London Transport, the Bank of England, the Post Office and the General Consumer Council for Northern Ireland show that all are continuing to make good progress. In my last statement, I expressed concern about the Environment Agency's rate of progress in tackling the bug in its business-critical embedded systems. I am pleased to report that this work is now 90 per cent. complete, and is on course to be finished by the end of June.

Progress across the police service is mainly satisfactory, although a few forces have completion dates for business-critical systems in the second half of 1999. However, progress on business continuity planning is disappointing. Twenty-seven of the 46 forces in England and Wales do not yet have an initial business continuity plan in place.

The Association of Chief Police Officers' millennium co-ordination committee is monitoring progress closely, and its chairman has written to chief constables recently to raise issues of concern. Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary is continuing to review individual forces' year 2000 arrangements and identify areas for improvement. A similar process is taking place in Scotland.

The returns for the fire service in England and Wales show an improvement over the previous quarter. All brigades expect to complete work by the end of the year, although a few do not expect to complete work until the final quarter of 1999, allowing little room for slippage. Her Majesty's fire service inspectorate will continue to monitor progress closely and offer brigades advice. Brigades in Scotland are moving forward on a similar time scale.

The results of the most recent NHS quarterly review in England were announced on 16 February. The number of organisations reporting good or satisfactory progress was slightly down on the previous quarter, at 91 per cent. However, 98 per cent. of NHS trusts and heath authorities met the NHS executive's deadline of 31 December 1998 for having identified and resourced effective solutions for all year 2000 problems that could pose a threat to patient safety. The estimated cost of remedial year 2000 work remains at about £320 million. The NHS in Scotland and Wales is also making satisfactory progress.

The Audit Commission's latest analysis of progress across local government in England and Wales shows that the situation as a whole is slowly improving, but that much more work remains to be done. The new teams in Government offices, announced by the Prime Minister on 25 January, are working with the Audit Commission and the Local Government Association to help authorities, particularly those that are furthest behind, to prioritise their programmes and to access advice and good practice.

The picture in Scotland is similarly mixed, and I am pleased that the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and the Accounts Commission for Scotland are progressing work with Scottish local authorities.

Over the last quarter, we have taken steps to put in place a rigorous and independent assessment programme for those elements of the public sector that are key elements of our national infrastructure. These assessments will include the NHS, local government, emergency services, the criminal justice system and the payment of benefits and will reinforce our existing monitoring arrangements. This will give us one of the most—if not the most—objective and comprehensive monitoring regimes in the world. I shall report on progress in my next quarterly statement. From June, I shall be backing that up with more regular reports to Parliament.

With less than 300 days to go until the century date change, it is important that Departments and agencies make the fullest and best use of the remaining time available. Looking at the overall picture, the vast majority are well placed to finish work on business-critical systems in good time. However, in a few areas, a concerted effort is required to ensure that the remaining work is finished to time. We will be also placing an ever-increasing emphasis on business continuity planning as we move through the rest of the year.

The Government will continue to lead by example, by making information on our progress in beating the bug regularly available to the House, and to the public.

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: 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.

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: 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.

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.

My hon. Friend asked about the third world. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office has taken a number of steps, along with the British Council, to conduct seminars, provide advice and do what can be done directly by British diplomats. We have given resources to the World bank project and to the Commonwealth to assist in encouraging compliance and in helping to fund the right kind of programmes in third-world countries.

My hon. Friend also asked about Russia. The Ministry of Defence has formed a co-operation committee with other member states, including NATO states. Advice, assistance and support are being given. We are being proactive with the Russians. We have offered to send a delegation to Moscow to discuss the issues. We support moves by NATO to engage Russia through the Permanent Joint Council mechanism and we are working supportively with the United States and others to offer advice.

Sir Nicholas Lyell (North-East Bedfordshire)

The Health and Safety Executive in Bedfordshire has reasonably pointed out that private businesses should be careful to check on the effects of the millennium bug—particularly embedded effects—that may have an impact on health and safety. However, an article in The Business magazine, which covered that aspect, gave little indication that guidance was being offered on what to look for and how to do so. Can the right hon. Lady satisfy us that the HSE and similar agencies will give constructive advice as well as warnings?

Mrs. Beckett

Certainly, they are seeking to do so. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman has concerns, Action 2000, among other organisations, would be happy to hear from him and to do all it could to supply information. One reason why I was fairly hard on his Front-Bench colleague, the hon. Member for Christchurch, was that, as time has gone by, people have discovered more complications. When work began on compliance, the importance of problems that might arise from embedded systems was not as greatly appreciated as it is today. As work unfolds, ever more aspects emerge. The problem is complex, but Action 2000 and other organisations would be happy to assist the right hon. and learned Gentleman.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce (Gordon)

Can the President of the Council give us an idea of the likely total cost of the problem? She mentioned £420 million for Government Departments and £320 million for the health service. However, those are compliance costs only, and they do not include the cost for local government or the costs of failure. Have the Government identified a range of possible outturns? We have already reached £1 billion, and the total cost will probably be billions of pounds.

Will the right hon. Lady say something about air traffic control? There are already enough difficulties with computers in that area before we have even reached 2000. There is genuine concern among the travelling public, not only about how airlines will handle the millennium, but about how the air traffic control system will function. Have the Government taken a view on whether they will need to act to control flying at the year change?

Some 27 of the 46 police forces in England and Wales have no initial business continuity plan; does the right hon. Lady agree that that is alarming? The police forces will be in the front line, facing the consequences of failure. How can they know what those consequences will cost, or how they will handle them? What about reports that the Government have instructed cancellation of all police leave, booked the armed forces and put the Territorial Army on standby? Is that true, or is it just press rumour?

Do the Government have any idea of the costs and practical implications of external failures that may impact on the public sector, such as failures in the private sector, among the utilities or in the telecommunications systems?

Finally, was the Chancellor of the Exchequer wise to announce a cut in the standard rate of income tax of one penny when there is so much uncertainty about the possible impact of failures resulting from the millennium bug and so much uncertainty about the eventual cost to the public sector, let alone the private sector?

Mrs. Beckett

The hon. Gentleman asked several questions, including some about financial consequences, on which I had best say that I shall write to him. However, let me warn him at the outset that I am not sure how much value there will be in any attempt to attach a figure, especially to the potential consequences of failure. I shall certainly look at the range of assessments available and write to him with such information as we can make available. He will be the first to appreciate that it is quite difficult to provide such information, especially when one considers the impact across the private sector. In addition, we are talking about programmes that, in the case of those that have been more forward looking, began as long ago as 1994 or earlier, so there is a wide range of potential effects.

The hon. Gentleman asked about aviation and air transport millennium compliance, which international and domestic aviation authorities are keeping under close review. Foremost in their minds is, and will remain, the safety of the public. Various audits and surveys are being undertaken, although I believe that none has yet been completed and many have to take commercial confidentiality into consideration. However, the assessments are being undertaken and, for our part, we shall make available such information as we can give.

The hon. Gentleman also asked about the police services. I share his concern, as does the inspectorate of constabulary, that the police have not made more progress on this matter. The Government have not given instructions on the subject of leave—I do not believe that we are in a position to give instructions to chief constables on such operational matters—but I understand that many forces have cancelled millennium leave, for precisely the reasons that the hon. Gentleman describes. The public celebration is expected to be extremely large and of unusually long duration, and both factors have an impact on preparedness.

No action has been taken to make extra plans, such as to have Territorial Army units on standby. There are normal preparations that have been made for potential emergencies and civil contingencies, and the length and the scale of the holiday are, and have been for some time, factored into those plans. It is not anticipated that other, wildly exceptional plans need to be made, but that is kept continually under review.

Barbara Follett (Stevenage)

I thank my right hon. Friend for that report. I am pleased by the progress made in the Department of Social Security, which will go a long way towards alleviating the fears of pensioners, including the 13,000 pensioners in my constituency who doubt that they will receive any cheques in January 2000. Will my right hon. Friend do all that she can to keep that not particularly computer-literate section of our society informed?

Mrs. Beckett

Yes, I shall. Like my hon. Friend, I recognise the great concern felt by many in society that that sort of basic service should be available. She will be pleased to learn that 99 per cent. of correction work on DSS systems is complete and that all those matters are subject to review and independent assessment. As we draw nearer the relevant date, we are all anxious to ensure that the normal services on which people rely and on which they expect to be able to rely will be available to them, without any material disruption.

Mr. Derek Wyatt (Sittingbourne and Sheppey)

I hope that my right hon. Friend has checked with the breweries that they will be all right on new year's eve.

On a more serious note, when we entered office on 1 May 1997, we found not a single paper on Microsoft's millennium compliance; I am not sure what sort of legacy that was. Sixty of Microsoft's leading products were not millennium compliant, but there was nothing to tell us that on 1 May 1997. I welcome the news on the tables, as that was a matter that I raised before; I shall look at them shortly.

However, to return to something that my right hon. Friend says that she will not do, may I offer her some information? The Wall street stock exchange has now done two practice days on Saturday mornings, and the results have been rather worrying. The stock exchange is concerned—its last practice day was three weeks ago—and I urge my right hon. Friend to revisit the idea of having even one Department test 10 per cent. of the system and wind it forward on a Saturday, Sunday or a bank holiday. Many people are also concerned about the 9 September 1999 date.

Mrs. Beckett

My hon. Friend is entirely right about the lack of preparedness that we discovered on coming to office. The first proper survey across Government was undertaken by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark), who was then Minister for the Cabinet Office, immediately after the general election.

I am afraid that I cannot undertake to supervise the breweries—many other people will be doing that, so I feel confident that I will not need to give them my personal attention. My hon. Friend asked about compliance testing, and I do not rule that out. However, I was asked specifically by the hon. Member for Christchurch—the matter has been raised from time to time—whether we should have a national test day on which everyone should test everything simultaneously. I see from my hon. Friend's reaction that he shares the general advice that we have been given that such an exercise would divert valuable resources and would be unlikely to assist us.

I am slightly surprised to learn that Wall street has experienced such difficulties. In most countries—including the United Kingdom—the financial sectors came into contact with the problem at the earliest possible opportunity because of roll-over dates, credit cards and other things that are forward dated. As a consequence, those sectors have probably done the most work in this area from the earliest time. The United Kingdom financial sector has completed a great deal of testing, supervision and other work, but we continue to review its readiness.

Mr. Ian Bruce (South Dorset)

The right hon. Lady is extremely good at castigating. However, she is on rocky ground in so doing—particularly in view of the fact that, on gaining office, the Government moved from TaskForce 2000 to Action 2000 and did nothing for six months. The responsibility for millennium compliance shifted from the Cabinet Office to the Department of Trade and Industry and then to the Leader of the House—that is three Departments of State in almost as many months.

Has the right hon. Lady read the recommendations made by Eurim, the European Informatics Market group, which is an all-party group of the House? If she has not, perhaps she will refer to the next edition of The House Magazine, which is to be published on Monday. It will contain an article by me and others—perhaps even the right hon. Lady will contribute—about those recommendations. The Government must examine standards and ensure that the solutions offered on the market have been approved by someone—the Government or perhaps a body sanctioned by them could perform that role—so that people will know what they can do to assist.

Will the Leader of the House also inform the House whether the money that the Government have put aside for Departments will be sufficient? At the outset, the Government estimated how much millennium compliance would cost—they decided on just under £1 billion—and the Departments did not receive a penny extra for their computer budgets. Departments have had to cope with the problem using their existing budgets, but surely extra resources will ultimately be necessary.

Mrs. Beckett

I must say to the hon. Gentleman—who follows these matters closely—that I think he is being both unwise and unfair. I did not set out to castigate: the hon. Member for Christchurch made a very silly attempt to pretend that anything that goes wrong will be the Government's fault. That is nonsense.

Mr. Chope

It is called responsibility.

Mrs. Beckett

That is stupid, and the hon. Gentleman knows it—at least, I think he does.

I am perfectly prepared to recognise that the previous Government did some work—but, I fear, not nearly enough, given that we did not come to power until May 1997. I am perfectly happy to deal with this issue on a non-partisan basis. Few people recognise the scale and the nature of the problems and the extent of the work that will be required to tackle them from the outset. I do not blame the previous Government for the fact that we inherited a very difficult situation. However, I certainly will not accept blame on behalf of this Government because of the Conservatives' neglect at the end of the 1990s. Opposition Members should stop being unwise. Rather than making silly partisan points, they should concentrate on what we can do together to ensure that there are no problems. Our constituents will face difficulties if there are problems.

The hon. Gentleman also made a point that has been repeatedly made and corrected. It is rubbish to say that nothing was done for six months. We did not renew the contract of TaskForce 2000—if I remember correctly, the previous Government gave it about £750,000—but we set up a new body to proceed with the campaign of awareness on which TaskForce 2000 had been set to work. We gave the body a budget of more than £18 million at the outset, and that has been increased. The notion that we fell down on the work plainly does not remotely stand up to the evidence.

I have not seen the recommendation to which the hon. Gentleman referred, and I am certainly happy to consider it. He is right to say that we are all anxious about the standard of work being done, and I shall consider the report carefully. Although it is not for the Government to second-guess standards in such matters, we should certainly ensure that good-quality advice is available. We have done that, and we are doing everything possible to publicise that information, and will continue to do so.

I urge Conservative Members to work with the Government on a problem that is, strictly speaking, nobody's fault, and certainly not the fault of any political party. I am happy to work on that basis, and I hope that they are too.

Mr. Derek Twigg (Halton)

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the concern about millennium compliance of people on benefits in my constituency? She made a point about the Employment Service. Will she confirm that its business-critical systems are finished? Does she agree that they are important as a delivery agent for benefits?

The Opposition tried to put the blame on the Government, when they should be taking the blame. In the Public Accounts Committee on Monday, we heard a report from the Comptroller and Auditor General, who said that a system that was introduced under the previous Government as late as April 1997 was not millennium compliant. Is that not an indictment of the total hypocrisy that we have heard from Conservative Members today?

Mrs. Beckett

My hon. Friend is right: the Conservative party's record does not bear examination of the kind that Conservative Members seek. I do not have at my fingertips the figures for the work of the Employment Service, but it has made considerable progress, as has the Department of Social Security. I should be happy to write to my hon. Friend, or he will find in the Library the tables and more details than I can give here today.

Mr. William Thompson (West Tyrone)

When the right hon. Lady made her statement, no mention was made of Northern Ireland, particularly when referring to the police service, the fire service, the national health service and local government in England, Wales and Scotland. As the millennium bug is as likely to strike Northern Ireland as the rest of the United Kingdom, will the right hon. Lady tell us the position on those important services in Northern Ireland?

Mrs. Beckett

I singled out for mention those areas that gave us concern and those areas that have done especially well. The great mass of Departments that come between those two groups are those where work is being done, and we are assured—and the evidence suggests—that they will be compliant within the time scale set by the Government.

In my previous statement, I singled out as areas of concern the Department of Health and Social Services and the Department of Finance and Personnel in Northern Ireland. Both had problems with their embedded chip programmes, and the Department of Finance and Personnel also had a late completion date for its critical IT systems. Both now tell us that they expect to complete their correction work on business-critical embedded systems in June, and the completion date for the other critical IT systems has also been brought forward to June.

Work is being undertaken and monitored, and we have not had flagged up as an area of anxiety the particular services that cause the hon. Gentleman concern.

Dr. George Turner (North-West Norfolk)

The House heard reference to league tables. Does my right hon. Friend accept that the only league tables on this issue that will have any validity are those that will be published in the new millennium, revealing what problems we encounter? Does she further accept that there will be problems because there is not one millennium bug, but a set of problems, and it would be a waste of resources if there were no problems? We must ensure that certain consequences do not occur. We must make sure that there is no loss of human life or breakdown in society's main functions. It is therefore very important that those who have responsibility for acting in time realise now that they will be held to account when the league tables are published in the new millennium. Although there will be problems, we want to be certain that they are minor and unimportant.

Mrs. Beckett

My hon. Friend is entirely right. Indeed, I notice that someone from the Institute of Grocery Distribution said that of course there would be problems, but You have to separate it out between the millennium party effect and the bug effect. That was a very pertinent comment.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right: from the outset, the top priority not just of the Government but of all those who deal with public services has been public safety and avoidance of material disruption, including, of course, issues such as loss of life. He is also right in saying that, in the ordinary course of events, particularly during the winter, we all expect various small-scale difficulties and breakdowns. It is important that we all do our utmost to ensure that such difficulties are no worse over this Christmas and new year than they have been over any other.

Miss Anne McIntosh (Vale of York)

My contention is that the right hon. Lady is not doing enough in the private sector, especially to combat the lack of transport insurance for travel on 1 January 2000. She is aware that the private sector is failing to insure air and rail travel on that day. I urge her not to absolve the Government of all responsibility, but to act, not just so that passengers can travel but so that facilities to travel by air and rail are provided.

Mrs. Beckett

I am not in the business of trying to walk on water; I cannot say that, of course, there will be facilities for air and rail travel. I certainly assure the hon. Lady that we, together with all relevant regulators, companies and bodies, are doing everything that we can to ensure that whatever facilities are made available are safe.

I know that the hon. Lady has concerns about insurers; she and I have corresponded about that matter. There is a mixed picture. Insurers are prepared to cover eventualities that people cannot foresee, but some policies in some companies have exclusions. I know that my civil servants will curse me for saying this, but I would be very happy if the hon. Lady encouraged those who have contacted her to contact us. It slightly surprises me that she has raised the issues with me as a matter of major concern to those in the travel industry, but those concerned have not raised them with us or, indeed, with Action 2000. If there are widespread concerns, we would obviously be very happy to hear about them and do anything that we could to attempt to address them.

Mr. Andrew Lansley (South Cambridgeshire)

Has the right hon. Lady received a report from her hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office, who visited Addenbrooke's hospital in my constituency today, where I hope he will have found a model of activity in respect of millennium compliance? I think that he visited the Rosie maternity hospital as well—where, for example, there are contingent risks of unanticipated demand associated with the millennium. Perhaps such risks should be anticipated. In the next few weeks, the hospital will have had to establish the staffing, pay and associated costs that will be involved. It would take the view that, rather than a Dutch auction between public services on available staff compensation, some Government guidance would be useful.

Mrs. Beckett

I understand that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary was impressed by the work undertaken at Addenbrooke's hospital—as always, since the hospital has a very high reputation—although, if I heard him correctly, I also understand that much of it was not undertaken or did not begin until two or three years ago. With the benefit of hindsight, one might have hoped that the hospital had begun earlier, although that applies in very many quarters. The assessment of likely costs and service needs and how they can be met, which the hon. Gentleman seeks, is being made. We are of course considering how those issues relate to the private sector.

I say to the hon. Gentleman—with respect, this is not an attacking point—that Conservative Members are often keen for the Government not to interfere when they say that it is, strictly speaking, not the Government's business. Although I am always keen to encourage development organisations to make the right preparations, to take account of the right factors and to obtain information to enable them to make judgments about the cover that they will need, the arrangements that they should make and what costs they should anticipate covering, I am reluctant to get involved in too much second-guessing of what is required in a particular locality. The Government do keep these matters under review and, if guidance is sought, we endeavour to give what guidance we can.