I hope it does the job intended for it, which is to increase awareness of the need to be Y2K compliant, particularly in the business sector. Commentators have described the problem of tackling the Y2K bug as one of apocalyptic proportions which will cost billions of pounds to overcome. That is not an exaggeration when one regards the problem on an international basis. Those who have not yet started to plan for it might find it is now too late. I share the Minister's concern about the readiness of small and medium sized enterprises and their willingness to invest in ensuring they are Y2K compliant. The message has not got through to the SME sector that it will cost far more to resolve the problem if they wait until the time comes rather than investing in a planned way at this stage.
The problem is spread across the information technology spectrum, from hardware to software and from mainframe computers to desk top PCs. The mainframe computers are the main concern because they are generally older applications which hold a large amount of data. There is a historical problem with resolving those issues.
In the early years of computers they had far less memory capacity than they do today and year dates were represented by two digits instead of four, for example, "1998" was represented as "98". As we approach the year 2000, "00" could be read as "1900" instead of "2000", "01" could be read as "1901" instead of "2001", and so on. This would result in serious errors in computer calculations and operations generally. Examples of the fallout in terms of serious failures and dangerous calculations are readily available. There has already been a case in the US where a computerised dosing machine for the radioactive treatment of patients provided an overdose which killed patients because of a computer miscalculation. This is a very serious area. I do not wish to hype the issue or scaremonger but such examples make an impact on people and bring home to them the seriousness of the problem outlined by the Minister.
The Y2K problem is a design difficulty. Despite the common parlance referring to it as a "bug" it is not a computer virus and will manifest in all areas of electronics, computing and communication services generally, as well as control electronics embedded in industrial plants and vehicles. This latter area is of particular concern in regard to embedded chips. Examples include transport systems, air traffic control and many other airport functions, oil rigs, lifts, electricity and water supplies — we can cherrypick our own lists of areas in which problems might arise. The problems are endless and impact on every aspect of life. The implications for the embedded systems are particularly serious and it is extremely difficult and costly to identify potential Y2K failures.
A special interest group on the Year 2000 problem for the public sector has been in session since 1996. It has met regularly and has identified and addressed the common technical issues which affect Departments. All Departments and offices have by now produced Y2K plans. According to a Department of Finance document on the issue, the volume of Year 2000 compliance activities varies considerably from Department to Department and, in some cases, can be quite minor. Many potential Year 2000 problems have already been eliminated by the replacement of aging computer systems and infrastructures. Considerable remedial work has been ongoing for some time in the Departments and offices most affected and all expect this remedial work will be completed by early 1999.
The additional IT cost arising in 1998 and 1999 for the resolution of Year 2000 problems has been estimated at £12.8 million for the Civil Service, although the Department of Finance document to which I am referring is a couple of months old. The Minister of State mentioned £13 million. When addressing this issue in the Dáil last October, the Taoiseach, Deputy Bertie Ahern, mentioned £12.6 million. The figure on the Government's web site a few months ago was £12.8 million. If the cost goes up by £500,000 every six months we can see the sort of money we are getting into. When the Taoiseach mentioned the figure of £12.8 million last October experts said that this was extremely conservative and that is proving to be the case. In the long run it is going to cost far more. However, no matter how high the cost, it is money well spent. If we are not ready, if all Government systems are not up and running and Y2K compliant, all of us who are customers of the public and Civil Service, Departments and State agencies will suffer in terms of the standard of services we have come to expect.
The Departments of Social, Community and Family Affairs and Agriculture and Food and the Revenue Commissioners were singled out in October 1997 by the Taoiseach as priorities for preparedness for Y2K. I would have added the Department of Health and Children to that list as there are enormous implications for the readiness of that Department, the health boards and the myriad hospitals and other care agencies under its aegis. The media has recently commented on whether hospitals will get financial help from the Department to become Y2K compliant. What of blood supplies and the best before dates on those supplies? There have already been problems in some countries with blood supplies because of the event horizon issue. If there is a two year event horizon in terms of best before dates or expiry dates on products, services or credit cards, systems cannot cope because they cannot handle any date beyond 1999. What is being done about this? Is help coming from the Department of Finance to the Department of Health and Children, health boards and hospitals to ensure full compliance in this critical area?
Some medical diagnostic machines have automated dosages and are completely dependent on accuracy and compliance. Will all of this be looked into and will everything be in place by 2000? These are the issues which impact on the punters and patients who are the consumers of public services. We need to be assured and in so doing we are helping to increase awareness in all sectors of what needs to be done in this area.
The interdepartmental monitoring committee set up last autumn, which is separate from the special interest group on year 2000, has private sector participation and is chaired by the Department of Finance. However, it only held its first meeting in December 1997. I have been requesting a debate in this House on this issue for six months. It is six months since I became concerned about what I perceived as a lack of activity in the public service in this area. I compliment the Minister of State and the Minister for Finance on the movement in the intervening six months. Last October the Seanad first requested information from the Government on what was happening on Y2K compliance and there has been tremendous progress since then. I compliment the interdepartmental monitoring committee on the work it has done to date. Its first quarterly report has gone to Government. I do not think the Minister of State referred to it in his statement but I would like to know when it will be made public and when we can have a copy of that report. This is not a political issue. It is only with all party support that we can raise public awareness to the point where we have readiness on Y2K compatibility.
The Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs is leading other Departments in terms of its Y2K programme and I commend the Department for this. It established its Y2K board in 1996. It depends on its network of computer systems. If there was a failure in the year 2000 to pay cheques to those depending on payments from the Department, one can only begin to imagine the chaos and confusion which would ensue.
I have not seen the Minister of State's brochure but I would appreciate if, in replying, he could indicate what he is doing in the area of small and medium enterprises to ensure a greater awareness and willingness in this sector to be Y2K compliant on time. Has he spelt out in his brochure and press release the enormous implications for the business sector generally of failing to meet compliance on time? I would appreciate if he could expand on that in his reply.
Another problem to which I thought the Minister might refer, especially as it impinges on his area of responsibility, is the problem of euro compliance which compounds that of Y2K compliance. Financial experts pleaded with Europe to delay the date for the introduction of EMU and the euro because its coinciding with the Y2K problem compounded the major difficulty faced by small and medium enterprises. Government Departments and big corporations have the financial and human resources to cope with the difficulties of Y2K and euro compliance. However, small and medium enterprises face critical difficulties which are not properly recognised at this stage. Companies already dealing with different currencies will have to adjust to new rules; but single currency companies, which comprise the majority of small Irish companies, are in for a shock and they do not realise it yet. There are complex issues relating to software and euro compliance generally. A company may think it is euro compliant, but will it match its suppliers and distributors? All small companies are part of an interconnected business web and, unless all their suppliers and distributors are euro compliant, their system will not work. Small companies will have to ask whether support and maintenance contracts for various software packages cover the euro adjustment?
Problems concerning spreadsheets, historical data, double disk requirements, ATM machines and difficulties in a range of other areas raise their heads. Any ATM card or other plastic money card with an expiry date beyond the year 2000 could be rejected. AIB has decided its ATM system will change over at the start of the dual cash period on 1 January 2002. Will there be six months' chaos during the changeover period or will the dual cash period be reduced from six months to the minimum period necessary for the logistics to be put in place to reduce the period of chaos? Will the Minister respond to that when he replies because there is huge concern about euro compatibility compounding the difficulties of Y2K compatibility?
Most companies will not be able to handle the two problems of Y2K and euro compatibility simultaneously. Despite the pleading of various experts, the introduction of the euro is on the same date as Y2K. The latter is an information technology concern with a business impact and the euro is a business concern with an IT impact. They are different but related. The IT subcommittee of the EMU business campaign of Forfás reported that there were three core IT issues arising from the necessity for euro compatibility. First, conversion will have to be done to six significant figures and not four in the multi-currency packages. Second, the subsequent rounding up or down of amounts will lead to certain discrepancies which will have implications for balance sheets. Third, conversion between any two currencies within EMU will have to be done through the euro. A new buzzword has entered phraseology —"triangulation". Eurospeak extends day by day. Triangulation means that, with the advent of the euro, if one is changing from French francs to punts, the francs will first have to be changed to euros and then from euros to punts rather than from francs to punts. It will be a three way transaction rather than the two way one it is at the moment. This is referred to as triangulation.
