To print: Click here or Select File and then Print from your browser's menu

This story was printed from silicon.com, located at http://www.silicon.com/

Story URL: http://comment.silicon.com/0,39024711,11006369,00.htm

Why Tony Blair must catch the bug
Year 2000 problems have been afflicting the UK government recently. It doesn't seem to matter how many times they try to change the subject - the bad news just seems to follow them. According to Anna Russell it's time to stand up and face the music...

By Anna Russell

Published: Thursday 12 November 1998

The millennium bug has plagued the UK government this week. First came a Cap Gemini report which showed that Britain has slipped behind most of the rest of Europe in its readiness, falling from second to eighth place in a list of 12 countries. The Audit Commission threatened to name and shame local authorities that are still behind target for Y2K compliance.

Then the independent body, Taskforce 2000, exposed nine government departments, and accused them of being at a high risk of suffering serious system problems come the millennium. And there's no shyness about naming and shaming here: they include the MoD, the DTI, the Home Office and Northern Ireland.

But the report leaves the biggest question of all unanswered: how can this bleak situation be turned round? In the final analysis, the only thing that will make a difference is accountability. And that accountability must be at the highest level.

The 12,000 word report, 'Death by a Thousand Cuts', was released on 11 November, and is at pains to state that all government departments have made sufficient headway to ensure that millennium blackout is not looming large on the horizon. But on no account has the government bought itself any breathing space. The report's author, Ian Hugo, states plainly that the lack of preparation in some departments remains "a serious concern".

While the public infrastructure is unlikely to reach the point of total meltdown, Tony Blair will hardly be smiling 13 months from now about his stated aim of "no material disruption" to public sector services.

The prime areas for concern identified in the report are wildly unrealistic deadlines and budgets, and the fact that many systems previously defined as mission-critical are being pushed off the priority list.

Taskforce 2000 highlights the MoD's Y2K programme as one of the most threatened: "The programme has now been pared to a mere 6,000 critical IT systems and a June audit by Logica reportedly listed 35 recommendations of which eight were key. No information as to the nature of the recommendations is offered. Some staffing problems are being experienced and 29 per cent completion is currently reported."

For whatever reason, the Tory administration decided that Taskforce 2000 had outlived its usefulness. Then the Labour government replaced it with Action 2000. Thankfully, Taskforce 2000 has continued its work to educate and inform UK Plc and the government about the scope and scale of the problem we face. Far from being scaremongers about Y2K they are one of the few sane, sensible voices in this whole millennium circus.

In point of fact, Taskforce 2000 praises most government departments for their courage in supplying warts and all information for the report. But the government needs to do more than this - it should listen to and act upon the advice and recommendations. Swiftly.

To date, the government has been totally remiss in ensuring ministerial accountability and responsibility. Due to the lack of time, the gravity of the situation is such that the Prime Minister himself should take on this task - taking it right to the top of his personal agenda.

While the doom-mongers are unhelpful, we also need to stop trivialising the issue - task number one should be to lose that stupid cartoon bug, symbol of Action 2000.

Which brings us neatly onto Action 2000 itself. Gwynneth Flower needs to be empowered to make her organisation more than a feeble public information service. The funds should be found for it to provide practical, helpful consultancy rather than glossy information packs.

Finally, government departments need to publish their contingency plans in enough time so that sensible critiques can be made. The tide of time may be unstoppable, but the Blair administration should never want to stand accused of not taking the problem seriously enough.