I thank Senator Mooney for raising this important issue. This is the second time he has raised the year 2000 computer date problem. He is obviously concerned about it and I thank him for raising the matter again.
The Senator is correct that there will be a problem if embedded chips and computer systems cannot cope with the change of date, or as it is commonly known, the year 2000 problem. We are aware that there are electronic sensors, devices and controls as well as a large volume of computers that will not be able to handle the year 2000 unless they are either reprogrammed or replaced. This will have a major impact on the building sector, as the Senator observed, because of the increased reliance in the past 20 years on computers and electronic devices to design, provision, build, service and control most buildings.
The year 2000 represents a major concern for the real estate industry because many buildings systems are controlled by software that may have trouble recognising the century date change. Such systems include elevators, alarm systems, heating and ventilation, security locking and electronic access to buildings.
There is no need to point out that the building sector will not be alone in this. There is hardly an activity in business or daily life where computer systems or microchips are not in use and crucial. Each such device that uses dates for control or calculation purposes is in the greatest danger of going wrong or just not working perhaps from 9 September 1999 but definitely after 31 December 1999. In simple terms, the computerised system will not know that it is the year 2000. It will be aware only of the fact that the year "99" has become the year "00". Thus, old machinery and even some recent equipment may be unable to deal with that serious situation.
While we have been aware of this problem for some time and have been seeking to raise awareness of it, it is still possible that, even in the last year, people may have bought computer systems and electronically controlled equipment in the expectation that it was year 2000 compliant. However, that should not be assumed. The watchwords are testing and contingency planning. The feedback we constantly get from businesses is that their initial internal investigations have invariably underestimated the extent of the problem. People and firms must check and recheck every system, device and control system to test that it can work with the year 2000 date change.
A firm or person should only be relaxed about this if they have received a solid guarantee from suppliers that their system is compliant. Even then, the only certainty in this matter is the deadline of 1 January 2000. Enterprise must consider this as a question of risk assessment and management. Contingency plans should be drawn up in the event that critical systems do not work properly on the day.
If anyone asks why, my reply is that it is the difference between being able to continue doing business as normal and being at a loss. We should remember also that the time required to investigate systems and to repair or adjust them could be substantial. Obviously, anyone who puts this on a long finger as next year's problem is courting disaster. Most importantly, it is not an issue for the computer buff. It is vital, crucial for continuing in business and not sustaining heavy losses. It is very much for the board of a company to ensure that a thorough, exhaustive and extensive investigation is made in each firm. Putting that off would be sheer recklessness on the part of the directors and company management.
Over a year ago the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment sent warning literature on this to 100,000 businesses in Ireland. We have spoken on radio and television and with print media journalists to ensure that awareness is raised. We have seen good coverage of the issue, but the fear still remains that some firms may treat this as a postponable, longer term issue that must await the solution of this week's or next week's problem. Worse still, they may see it as a problem for someone else to solve for them. Attributing blame in this case is neither straight-forward nor beneficial. It is too dangerous. I hope Senators will join me in imploring firms and organisations to attend to this serious computer problem now.
I have been concerned about the translation of awareness into action and for this reason I have spent a great deal of time this year seeking a co-ordinated response from a number of bodies that could help me influence the private sector to act urgently. I have held discussions with the auditing profession, the banking industry, the insurance industry, the Stock Exchange, chambers of commerce, the county and city enterprise boards, the Irish Computer Society, the software industry, IBEC, ISME and many other organisations. I am pleased that each of them in their own way is seeking to impress and impel firms with which they deal to attend to this immediately.
A series of seven regional public meetings have been held to highlight awareness of the problem. The auditors, the banks, the insurance industry, the Stock Exchange and others will be keen to know that the firms with which they deal are making a serious effort to deal with this complex issue. Who wants to certify or advance facilities to a firm that will go under because of neglect of this matter? Likewise I have asked IDA Ireland, Forbairt/Enterprise Ireland, An Bord Tráchtála and the enterprise boards not to make supports or grants available to firms unless they have assurances that the new enterprises are attending to this issue as a matter of urgency.
The year 2000 problem has an important cross-Border dimension. Companies which trade in the international marketplace need to check that both their foreign clients and suppliers are also year 2000 compliant.
In May this year I issued a further and more comprehensive brochure outlining the nature and implications of the problem and giving advice on how to deal with it. This has been circulated to every business both directly and to the organisations involved in the national awareness campaign. If Members of the Oireachtas can help in any way to advance this mission, I would welcome it. I am seeking to bring the message to every corner of the country through public meetings and national and provincial press coverage.
The Government is, of course, concerned that public bodies make the necessary changes in good time too. Each Minister is responsible for those bodies under his or her aegis. Progress is subject to review at the Cabinet. While I am not the person to speak for them, I am aware that my own efforts of raising awareness in business generally and to translate awareness into activity are having an impact among public bodies and local government generally. I welcome and value every contribution from Senators to amplify my efforts. This is a matter for everyone. There is too much at stake for procrastination or gimmickry.
I sincerely thank Senator Mooney for raising this seriously important matter again. It gives me an opportunity, on behalf of the Government, to raise the profile of this matter and to alert the nation at large about the seriousness of this very complex year 2000 computer problem. We will be convening a major national year 2000 conference, which will be our final national get together on this matter, on 9 September 1998, which is exactly one year from the first crisis date — 9 September 1999. We hope this will give ample opportunity and advance warning to business people and all those who use computer systems to ensure they are ready, because there will be only one year left from 9 September. If people do not get it right in the next year, they will have no hope of catching up in the final quarter of the following year. The deadline is definitely 31 December 1999.
I hope this information is of assistance to Senator Mooney and the House. I thank him again for raising this topic which is of critical national importance.
