Lords Sitting of 2 March 1966

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Oxford

CENTRAL AFRICAN FEDERATION CIVIL SERVICE PENSIONS
2.35 p.m.
LORD OAKSHOTT: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government upon whom the responsibility lies for the payment of the pensions of civil servants employed by the former Central African Federation; and whether there is at present any interruption of, or difficulty over, payment.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS AND FOR THE COLONIES (LORD BESWICK): My Lords, the responsibility for the payment of the pensions of civil servants employed by the former Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland rests, under the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland (Dissolution) Order in Council 1963, with the Pension Agency established by that Order. Until other provision is made the Pension Agent is the Pensions Officer of the Southern Rhodesian Government, but in carrying out the duties of Pension Agent he acts in an independent capacity. The moneys out of which he makes payments come from the Central African Pension Fund, which is also established by that Order and which is vested in and managed by Trustees appointed by the Governments concerned. The Crown Agents have been appointed as the Trustees. I am glad to say that payments are continuing to be made. However, the fund has for some time now been faced with a serious shortage of liquidity problem, since the assets are mostly tied up in Government stock of Rhodesia, Zambia and Malawi. Her Majesty's
682
Government hope that this problem can be resolved without delay.
LORD OAKSHOTT: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that rather involved Answer. May I take it, from what he says, that there is no interruption in the payment of these pensions in Rhodesia at the present time? May I further ask him this, a point which came to my notice since I put down the Question: is he aware that not only residents of Rhodesia suffer if there is an interruption but also former servants of the Federation, ex-Servicemen living in this country, who have been notified that their pensions arc not going to be paid any longer? Surely Her Majesty's Government must have some responsibility after the break-up of the Federation, separately with each of the territories, to see that these pensions are properly paid?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, if the noble Lord has any details of any pensioner who is not receiving his pension, and if he will let me have them, I will certainly have inquiries made. But my information is that there is no interruption. So far as responsibility is concerned, that rests, as I have said, with the Pension Agency which, in turn, is responsible to the three Governments, Malawi, Zambia and Rhodesia.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord would be good enough to look at this matter again, because I have here some cuttings from the Salisbury Sunday Mail which imply that these pensions are not being paid owing to action which is taken by Her Majesty's Government. That may be nonsense, but I think it is most important, if that be so, that this is made clear; and there is a distinction drawn between what was done as a result of representations made in this House and the pensioners of the Federation Civil Service.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I think we are dealing with two quite different problems here. No action has been taken by Her Majesty's Government that has resulted in the withholding of any payment of a pension. Indeed, Her Majesty's Government have no power to withhold the payment of pensions. The difficulty arises from the liquidity problem. To enable the Pension Agent to solve this an appeal has been made to the three Governments for further funds. Both

683
Malawi and Zambia have made offers, in the case of Malawi to make a loan to the Trustees, and in the case of Zambia to purchase £1 million worth of Zambian stock. But the Rhodesian authorities have not been so co-operative. There is no action in this matter that has been taken by the British authorities.
LORD OAKSHOTT: My Lords, again I thank the noble Lord for that further answer. But have not Her Majesty's Government some responsibility in regard to people resident in this country? At the time of the break-up of the Federation, surely, with each of the three territories separately Her Majesty's Government took on some responsibility—so to speak, a fourfold bargain conducted with each of the three territories plus Her Majesty's Government. And when we have people in this country whose pensions are not being paid, surely there is some responsibility on Her Majesty's Government to see that they are paid.
LORD BESWICK: No, my Lords. The responsibility which Her Majesty's Government accepted was to make good 25 per cent. of any deficit revealed when the present actuarial investigation is completed, and Her Majesty's Government stand by that undertaking.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord this further question? As I understand it, under Clause 7 of the Agreement which set up this trust, the United Kingdom Government undertook that they would not place any hindrance upon the transmission of any assets of the Fund, and, as I understand it—perhaps the noble Lord will be good enough to deny this if it is wrong—Her Majesty's Government have recently repudiated that, on the grounds of the emergency which exists in Rhodesia, and therefore no funds are being transferred.
LORD BESWICK: No, my Lords. I see where the noble Lord gets his information, but I think there is a misunderstanding here, whether genuine or otherwise. Her Majesty's Government are not withholding any income which is due to the Fund. There are in this country, however, some assets resulting from the sale of stock. We have no obligation to transfer those assets at all unless requested by the Trustees, and the Trustees have not asked us to do this.
LORD GRIMSTON OF WESTBURY: My Lords, could the noble Lord explain a little further? He referred to a liquidity problem being the trouble here. How does that liquidity problem arise? Does it not arise in some form from the sanctions that have been introduced by Her Majesty's Government?
LORD BESWICK: No, my Lords. This difficulty arose before I.D.I. I have been asked the difference between liquidity and assets. I should have thought that it was fairly clear. Certain assets were placed at the disposal of the Pension Fund and they are inadequate. Appeals have been made to the various Governments for further contributions. Two Governments have responded, the third has not.
LORD REA: My Lords, would not the noble Lord agree that though perhaps their legal commitment may be limited, there is a moral responsibility to these people who may not be getting their pensions?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, there is an actuarial problem here which we shall do all in our power to help solve.

ROYAL NAVY GUIDED WEAPON
2.45 p.m.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the surface to surface guided weapon with which they intend to equip the Royal Navy is of British or foreign design, what is its range and whether this is the only naval weapon they propose to substitute for the striking power of the Fleet Air Arm.]
THE MINISTER OF DEFENCE FOR THE ROYAL AIR FORCE (LORD SHACKLETON): My Lords, as the Defence White Paper explains, aircraft operating from land bases will take over the main strike function of the carrier. The complementary Naval SSGW which will be introduced in the middle 1970s has not yet been designated. It will be necessary to assess the various possibilities—including any systems being developed by our NATO allies—and take these as the starting point for a new development to meet our requirements.

PRE-PACKED MILK
2.46 p.m.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what is their estimate of the number of offences that have been committed since July 31, 1965, of selling milk pre-packed in containers not marked with any indication of quantity, contrary to the provisions of the Weights and Measures Act 1963; and how many prosecutions have taken place in respect of such offences.]
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, enforcement of weights and measures legislation is the responsibility of the local authorities. Their first reports to the Board of Trade covering their activities since July 31, 1965, will not begin to come in until after April 1. Consequently, the Board of Trade have no knowledge so far of any offences or prosecutions of the kind referred to in the noble Lord's Question.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Baroness for that helpful reply. Would it be right to say that about a million such offences were committed this morning, and, if that is so, does it not follow from that that a number of milk distributors, instead of complying with the 1963 Act at infinitesimal cost, have been snapping their fingers in Parliament's face and making fools of Her Majesty's Government and the Board of Trade?
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, the noble Lord will appreciate that I cannot answer on behalf of Her Majesty's Government until in fact we have some evidence on which to reply.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, would the Board of Trade keep an eye on matters of this kind?
LORD BYERS: My Lords, would it not be possible to find out further information from the "Co-op"?

MOTOR CAR DESIGN AND SAFETY
2.48 p.m.
LORD ST. JUST: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the motor industry is cooperating fully with the Road Research Department of the Ministry of Transport over internal safety design of cars, taking into account the ever increasing speeds possible in present day design.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF POWER (LORD LINDGREN): My Lords, the motor industry is co-operating closely with the Road Research Laboratory in several ways. Tests have been conducted by the Laboratory in co-operation with leading car manufacturers with a view to providing better crash protection. The industry has also provided cars of current and future design for impact experiments and for the development of protective barrier and guard rails. Results from the Laboratory's research have been, and are increasingly being, applied in design.
LORD ST. JUST: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for that full Answer.

AVIATION CONTRACTS
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, at a suitable moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend Lord Shackleton will be making a Statement on the pricing of aviation contracts.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Longford, I beg to move the first Motion which stands in his name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That leave be given to advance the Committee stages of the Local Government (Pecuniary Interests) (Scotland) Bill and the Universities (Scotland) Bill (now standing for Tuesday the 8th

687
instant) to Friday the 4th instant.—(Lord Shepherd.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend, I beg to move the second Motion which stands in his name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That Standing Orders No. 35 (Arrangement of the Order Paper) and No. 41 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be suspended until Parliament is prorogued.—(Lord Shepherd.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES
Order of the Day read for the consideration of the Second Report from the Select Committee.
The Committee's Report was as follows:
1.—ACCOMMODATION
(a)Smoking Room
The Committee considered a proposal to provide a Smoking Room for Peers. They are of opinion that there is need for this amenity but that it cannot be provided from existing accommodation; they therefore referred the matter to the Administration Committee to investigate the possibility of including a suitable site in any scheme for the construction of new accommodation.
(b)Television
The Committee were informed of the installation of a television set for a trial period in Committee Room C.
2.—PARLIAMENT OFFICE AND LIBRARY
The Clerk of the Parliaments informed the Committee of a re-arrangement within the grade of Office Assistants.
The Committee authorised the scales of pay and allowances consequent upon the revised grading with effect from 1st November, 1965.
3 .—REVISED SCALES OF PAY
The Committee authorised a revised scale of salary to the Personal Assistant to the Lords of Appeal with effect from 1st November, 1965.
The Committee sanctioned the application of the following Establishment Circulars:—

(a) E.C. No. 35/65—Central Pay Increase

(b) D.E.O. (66) (PAY) No. 1—Pay of the Higher Civil Service

(c) D.E.O. (66) (PAY) No. 2—Revision of pay scales partly or wholly between the Principal's maximum and the Assistant Secretary's minimum

to analogous grades of the staff of the House of Lords.
4.—RETIREMENTS
The Committee sanctioned the payment of the following Superannuation awards under the Superannuation Act 1965:—

(a) Pension and Additional Allowance to Mr. William Henry Victor Spill, Doorkeeper, who retires from 30th April, 1966.

(b) Gratuity to Mrs. Mary Williams, Housemaid, who retires on 19th March, 1966.

5.—OFFICIAL REPORT
The Clerk of the Parliaments informed the Committee of an application by Haynes Secretarial Services for an increase in their charges for the supply of typists to Hansard. The Clerk of the Parliaments was given discretion to negotiate a settlement (to take immediate effect) subject to Treasury approval; and to report to the Committee at its next meeting.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL): My Lords, I beg to move that the Report be now considered.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I beg to move that the Report be agreed to.
Moved, That the Report be agreed to.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMPUTERS FOR RESEARCH
LORD BYERS LORD BYERS rose to call attention to the Report of a Joint Working Group on Computers for Research (Cmnd. 2883); and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I do not think there will be much disagreement as to the importance in the future of computers in regard to the progress which we as a nation have to make. The Report of this Joint Working Group is better known as the Flowers Report, and we are deeply indebted to Professor Flowers, in particular, and to his colleagues, for producing a thorough and far-seeing document, and for exposing the highly unsatisfactory present position which many of us for some time have suspected to exist.
I think the first comment to be made is that it is a great pity that this Report was not produced five years ago. Only now have we been able to get public recognition of the size of the demand

689
for computers at universities and other establishments, a demand which has been built up so rapidly over the past few years, and we now have a proper assessment of the rate at which the requirements for additional computer time are likely to build up in the future. With most of the conclusions of the Working Group I think the House will be in fairly full agreement. But there will no doubt be one or two observations which your Lordships will want to put forward.
The more important conclusions seem to me to be, first of all, that the need for computers at universities and colleges of advanced technology, and institutions financed by Research Councils, is estimated by the Working Group to cost just over £21 million in a five-year period, of which—if I have the figure right—about £4¾ million would be needed to rent American machines. This total sum does not include the cost of buildings, the cost of operating and maintaining the computers, nor the extra staff which will have to be provided, and I understand that something of the order of another £10 million will have to be provided by the University Grants Committee to cover this. Without provision of this kind the programme will not be achieved, and I hope that the Government will be able to tell us that this sum will be provided.
If I may say so, I cannot understand why, in accepting the proposals of the Flowers Report, the Government decided to spread this five-year plan over a six-year period. I think this shows no appreciation at all of where we stand in this country vis-à-vis our competitors overseas. I should have thought that, at the very least, when every eye is turning on us from abroad, looking to see how far we are going with modernisation, this was very bad public relations. I should also have thought that it might have some influence with financial institutions, to whom in every sense we owe so much at the moment, if they saw that we were determined to get cracking on this all-important problem of computers in the universities and for research, instead of taking the rather cowardly action of spreading over six years what was said to be a vital five-year programme.
The Working Group stresses the need of the University Grants Committee to
690
agree very soon indeed the allocation of the money which is required to cover the 1966–67 costs. I do not know whether this has been done, but if it has not I hope that the Minister will be able to say that it is being done, because otherwise one can see that the whole programme will be set back even further. The Group also concludes that the existing pattern of the use of computers is far too complex; and I am sure that this is absolutely clear to anyone who has examined it. It proposes that it ought to be simplified by providing what is called a regional hierarchical system, each regional system being based on one medium or large computer at a university or research centre, with smaller computers at individual universities or research establishments, but with the right, as I understand it, of ready access to the large computers when required. The Group stresses in a most important part of the Report the need for compatibility between the different machines. To provide for this system, it is proposed that the seven existing KDF 9 computers in universities should be up-graded and, in addition, that several large American machines should be obtained and placed at the centre of the regional hierarchy.
I should like to say a few words on this proposal to "buy American" so far as the large computers are concerned. I understand that the primary reason is that the British computer industry could not produce anything equivalent to what is available in America until about 1969, and even then it would require guaranteed orders from the Government and financial assistance before it could undertake the work. I think this may be disputed by the British computer industry, but it is probably the basis upon which the conclusion was made. On the other hand, the rental of the three American machines is seen as a short-term operation, and it is envisaged that in time the larger units which are required will be produced by British manufacturers.
One fear which has been expressed to me is that, once the American machines are adopted for London, Manchester, and Edinburgh, the investment in programmes and operating systems will be so great that these institutions will in fact be completely shackled to the American system from then onwards. In addition, it is

691
said that the regional centres will undoubtedly become the nuclei of Britain's first major computer network, and that once this has happened reasons of compatibility or incompatibility will compel the majority of other users to use American machines as well. If this were to happen there would be little hope, if any, for the future of a British computer industry.
I think that this is a valid caution, but, so long as it is recognised as a problem and a danger, it should be possible to take the necessary steps to see that there is compatibility between the American machines and any new larger machines of the same sort which the British industry may be able to design in future. I should have thought that, so long as there were common languages in which the programmes could be written, there would not be too much fear that the Americans could take over. But when we have been dealing with the aviation industry we have seen quite a lot of the way in which American industry can work. So we must be on our guard here to make quite sure that we are not taking a step which might, without sufficient foresight, land us right in the hands of the Americans for a very long time. I hope that the British computer industry will respond to the very serious challenge which has been put to it.
It is also fair to say, I think, that many users of the computer system never see the computer which they are using. This is particularly so when they have access to the larger machines in the centre. I have been told by those who have been involved in using these, and who have studied the difference between America and Britain, that one of the differences is the slowness with which the Post Office responds to the need for additional data links; whereas in the States it appears possible to have these additional transmission lines put in very quickly indeed. I think this is something which ought to be watched, because having more data links can make a great deal of difference to the whole of the computer network.
Now I return to the proposal to set up a Computer Board, as a permanent body responsible for reviewing the need for computers and the reassessment of
692
policy from time to time. I think this is a very good idea indeed, and I wonder whether the Minister can say when it is proposed that this Board should take up its duties, and exactly what its scope will be. In this connection, it seems to me that one of the most important paragraphs of the Report is paragraph 289, in which Professor Flowers and his colleagues rightly stress that the British Government should do what the United States Government have done; that is, take a strong positive initiative in furthering all research applications of computing, instead of just assessing the applications for grants as they arise—in other words, to get in there and give a lead. This would involve detailed knowledge and detailed access to information. It would need a positive search for new techniques, and the formulation of a coherent plan continuously kept up to date as the situation changes. In particular, they say that an investigation should be made to find out how computers can best be introduced into schools and other educational institutions, possibly by the use of mobile equipment. They suggest that a pilot experiment could be initiated very quickly. I should have thought that this was the sort of line which the Government, with their emphasis on technology, would be very anxious to promote.
I believe that it is also essential to get this computer situation into the right perspective as quickly as we can, and to make sure that there is this positive drive by the Government, which will result not only in the provision of better facilities for universities and research, but in a much better educational policy than hitherto to make people in industry, and in other aspects of our life at all levels, aware of the contribution which the proper use of computers can make to increased efficiency and modernisation.
In a company of which I am a director, we have found in the last six or seven years that the computer, properly used, is a tremendous aid to the making of appropriate decisions by management. But as one goes around, one finds that many managements just do not understand to what use a computer can be put. A good deal of valuable work is already being done by the computer manufacturers, and by other institutions, but one is appalled at the tremendous amount of work which will have to be done to

693
bring management at all levels to an awareness of what they have in the way of an additional tool before they make decisions.
It is not simply in the industrial field that the computers have an application, and I hope that other noble Lords will refer to some of the major developments of science which I believe would have been impossible—and I mean impossible—without the use of powerful computers. I refer to the fields of nuclear biology, space research, design of nuclear power stations and so on. In the field of medical diagnosis I believe that the computer has a tremendous future, particularly with the development of models of the nervous system and of the brain, which can be used to simulate various reactions.
I should also like to ask the Government (and I do not do so in any critical sense; I should like to know) whether there is not a good deal of scope for the application of computers in long-range economic planning. I am sure that they are already being used to some extent, but I should have thought the scope could be quite wide. There are two particular aspects of this in which I am interested. The first is the possibility of producing a model of the economy which would enable one to see the potential effects of various courses of action without, in fact, subjecting the economy to them, unless they were beneficial. Secondly, is it not possible to improve the compilation of statistics on which economic and fiscal decisions are made by providing for those people who have to make them information which is really up to date?
I have a feeling that when the Chancellor of the Exchequer announces a credit squeeze, or that he is going to do something about hire-purchase—and we get this about every six months—he is probably working on information which is five or six months out of date. Is it not possible to get the information more quickly, to assemble it more quickly and to see that the various alternatives are produced by a computer as quickly as possible, so that people who have to make the decisions are making them on the facts as best they can be known?
I should now like to turn to one specific problem and ask the Government what their intentions are concerning it. This is the question of the Atlas Computer at London University. I have no
694
interest in this, except that I was quite appalled to find out that the University is faced with the task of selling time on the Atlas to commercial interests in order to provide the finance required for its purchase and its upkeep. There is, as I understand it, a Government grant for 25 per cent. of the actual operating cost, but I cannot help feeling that if we really want to go ahead in the computer field it is an absolutely wrong principle that any university should not be provided with the money that it needs, through the University Grants Committee. That it should have to go around trying to sell computer time to commercial interests seems to me to be absolutely wrong.
In this particular case, I understand, B.P. is finding the machine very satisfactory and is quite happy with the 25 per cent. of its time that it is taking, but I should have thought that the other 75 per cent. of the time ought to be made available by the Government for the academic purposes of the University, and that the University should not have to go around trying to sell it on a commercial basis. As I understand it, in the calendar year 1965 the academic use was 65 per cent. of Atlas's time, and, as I have said, the present Government's contribution covers only 25 per cent. of the time. The result is that the University used up 1,280 hours of computing time last year in excess of their quota, and for this it has received no reimbursement from Government sources. This is about half a million pounds, I understand, which is quite a big bill for the University.
What the University wants, as I understand it, is a clear decision from the Government. I think the Minister has been quite clever up to now in avoiding giving a clear decision; but surely the proper solution is for the remaining 75 per cent. of the computing time to be made available for academic work and paid for by the Government. The next best solution (although it is a poor one) must surely be for the Government to allow the University to have 50 per cent. of the time. Then 25 per cent. will go to B.P., and the other 25 per cent. will have to be sold commercially. I believe that is a wrong principle, but if the Government were to give the University an additional 25 per cent., making 50 per cent., it

695
would cost an extra £600,000. I think this would be money well spent; and, if we do not do this, we shall get a reduction of academic time in 1966 compared with 1965.
I should have thought that, when one looked at the Flowers Report and the way it shows how vital it is that there should be no paring of the facilities available to the universities, it would be clear that it is absolutely vital that this should be reconsidered by the Government, and one would like to hear what they are going to do about it. The University has been seeking a decision from the Government on this matter, I understand, since December, 1963, so the present Government do not bear all the blame for this. But it cannot wait indefinitely. The performance of Atlas, I believe, has improved sufficiently for commercial commitments to be safely entered into, but these commitments, which will have to be long-term, will permanently reduce the amount of time available for academic purposes. The greater the delay in reaching a decision, the less time there will be on offer to the Government for meeting the serious deficiency in computing facilities on large machines which was disclosed in the Flowers Report.
In addition, I understand—and I hope the Minister will correct me if I am wrong —the University still has to find just over £1 million towards the capital cost of Atlas. This, surely, should be covered by a contribution from the Government, so that the University can go forward with a clean slate instead of having to find the cash itself. I should have thought that the computers for research and those for universities —and many more of our people are now going to universities, thank goodness! —were so important that the universities should not be left with the job either of trying to sell time commercially or of finding the capital required for the particular machines; and I hope that this Government will be able to make a statement which will be acceptable to us on this matter. I should also like to ask—although perhaps I should have addressed this question to Professor Flowers—why the new large computer is to be placed at the Imperial College, and not at the London University Institute of Computer Science. I am just intrigued as to why
696
this should have been the decision. One would have thought that the Institute of Computer Science might have been the better place.
One thing that does come out very clearly in this Report—and, of course, it is well known throughout the computer industry, as well as being known to all of us —is the shortage of skilled manpower to make a proper computer system throughout industry, the universities and the research establishments effective. This is not an easy problem, but it is a problem; and one would like to know what the Government have in mind for getting the several tens of thousands, I believe, of people who will be required to man these machines. In fact, right from the senior programmers and heads of computer divisions down to the ordinary operator there seems to be an acknowledged shortage at the present time. This is something which, in the interests of modernisation, the Government will have to deal with, whatever Government is in power, as a matter of high priority, and I hope the Minister will be able to say something about how we are proposing to fulfil this demand. My Lords, I want once more to say how deeply indebted the House should be to Professor Flowers for this Report, for its content and for the hope it holds out for the future of this country. I beg to move for Papers.
3.9 p.m.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I hope that the preoccupation of your Lordships' minds with many other matters will not prevent you from thanking the noble Lord, Lord Byers, for raising this subject; and, if I may say so, he has made a speech on it which is full of interest, even although there may not yet be a computer which is capable of calculating how many Liberal Members of Parliament are going to be returned on March 31.
LORD BYERS: That goes for both Parties.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: The noble Lord also paid a tribute to Professor Flowers and his colleagues for the Report, which is one of the promptest that I can remember. The length of time between the appointment of the Working Group and the final issue of their conclusions was commendably short. In

697
paragraph 11, I think, they mention the two purposes of their study: first, to assess the computing needs of research institutions and universities; and, second, the need to stimulate British computer industry. They say the latter is a secondary, though desirable, aim. From their point of view, it is secondary because they were asked particularly to consider the needs of the universities.
Expenditure on university research has been growing for a long time. The last overall figure I can remember is in the eight years up to 1963, when it was multiplied nearly three times from £14 million to nearly £40 million. The noble Lord, Lord Byers, said, with pardonable enthusiasm, that it would have been much better if this Report had been published five years earlier. Perhaps it might have been a good thing to have had a Report five years ago; but it would not have been the same as this one because conditions were very different at that time. It was five years ago, in 1961, that the University Grants Committee, gave, I think, over £600,000 for the Atlas computer for London University about which the noble Lord has just been speaking. Since then the needs of London University for computer research and computer services have grown out of all recognition; and, of course, they are now finding that only 25 per cent. of the time is not nearly enough for their needs, although their facilities have been added to since then by the IBM machine in the Imperial College provided by the American company, International Business Machines. The noble Lord mentioned B.P. I do not think he mentioned that B.P. in 1961 contributed just about the same amount as the University Grants Committee, £600,000, for the installation of this Atlas machine. They have since then been of great help in teaching the staff of London University how to use and how to get the best out of this computer.
But I would have said that the greatest change in conditions was brought about when, in 1963, we accepted the Robbins Report and committed ourselves to a vast expansion of universities—greater than many people had contemplated before. One of the great arguments which we had to meet from many quarters against the Robbins Report was summed up in the three words: "More is worse". And, of course, one can easily see the
698
arguments for that; and one can see how difficult it is, with this unprecedented expansion, to get enough qualified staff to maintain the standards of education. Computers are a very great saving in time and effort. They enable so much more work and calculations in research and in business to be done with so fewer people in a very much shorter time.
Your Lordships will see that Chapter V of the Report covers all the universities; and nearly all of them need a great deal more help from the University Grants Committee and the Government to expand their computer services. There will not be time to mention more than one or two in this debate. I hope the Government will forgive my asking one local question on this. It was only on Thursday of last week that your Lordships gave a Second Reading to the Bill (which is going to have its remaining stages, I understand, on Friday) to convert Queen's College, Dundee, into a university, which will take place in little more than a year. Queen's College until now has been associated with St. Andrews. It has a very large number of students from all over the world. I think there are no fewer than 54 nationalities represented—all the Commonwealth countries, a great many of the non-Commonwealth countries, besides a great many students from Scotland and England. They have a large school of engineering, which is of great importance to our productive economy; there is a very large school of medicine; there is a very large school of law, and many others.
For five years they have had to make do with a very old type of Zebra, which is totally inadequate. The Flowers Report recommended, in paragraph 212, that this College should have an ICT 1905 in 1966–67. I am using this as an example which applies also to others; and I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Byers, in regretting that the Government are taking six years instead of five. The main point is that they have accepted the recommendation and apparently contemplate the expenditure of the £29 million. But I am not clear about the timetable, which is very important here; and I am sure that this is a question which affects other universities, too. I should like to ask the Government about

699
the timetable. Are they accepting this particular recommendation to give Queen's College an ICT 1905 in 1966–67? And can they definitely say that that is the date on which it will be provided?—because that would give some encouragement to this large and new university.
The noble Lord, Lord Byers, also very rightly, dealt with the second issue raised in this Report: the future of the computer industry in Britain. Rightly, I think, he expressed some apprehension about the possibility of the British computer industry being eclipsed by the Americans. I need not go over what he said about the Flowers Report recommendation and about the American machine that they propose should be hired. They think it necessary to get some American because it is not possible to get enough British ones in time. They say in paragraph 18 about these recommendations in general that they want to help.
" stimulate the British computer industry to regain its proper place as a viable commercial venture."
There is just one thing that I should like to ask about this; and, like the noble Lord, Lord Byers, I am only asking for information.
There have been several questions in another place which, for departmental reasons, they have so far refused to answer, about what is called the Maddock Report. That is a departmental report which we understand was received some time ago, with the following terms of reference:
"To review and report on the design standards to be adopted for a new range of British computers to serve civil needs in the early 1970's."
One of the members of this group which was asked to make a report was Mr. Laver, the director of the Computer Division of the Ministry of Technology, who is also a member of the Flowers Committee. The group included representatives of some parts of the British computer industry. I believe that it reported to the Minister on December 16 last.
The Minister, replying in another place to Mr. Marples, on February 15, seemed to think that this committee was not concerned with the computer industry at all; but I think that it is, and I think that the
700
terms of reference—if I have them right—show that it is closely related to the recommendations of the Flowers Committee on large computers. I am only asking for information, and I am suggesting only that it would be helpful if the Government could give some information, particularly to explain why the Minister said that the Maddock Committee had nothing to do with the future of the British computer industry. Obviously it has a bearing on what designs are to be favoured in the immediate future.
I should like to make clear that I am not suggesting (I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Byers, would agree with this) that there ought not to be the fullest co-operation between British and American industry in the development of computers. If your Lordships will forgive me for mentioning another local example. in the Dundee area there are several firms engaged in the computer industry. There is a branch of Ferranti, which is an entirely British company. There is a large branch of the National Cash Register, which has no fewer than six factories there. It is entirely an American company, but in Britain it produces two kinds of computers, the NCR15, which is entirely of American design, and the NCR Elliott 803, which is a British design. Of course, the American design-produced computer has just the same beneficial effect on the British economy in respect of balance-of-payments possibilities, exports and the saving of imports, as if it were a British design, and I think that co-operation and interchange of information between the British and American firms is all to the good of our economy.
I have only one other point to put to the Government. It may be a little outside the main purpose of this Report, but I think it is important to the future of the British computer industry. It concerns the new proposals of the Government for investment incentives. Computers are mentioned in paragraph 30 of the White Paper on Investment Incentives. It is stated that:
"All computers used for purposes of trade will be eligible for grants at the rate of 20 per cent. There will be no regional grant of 40 per cent."
It goes on to explain that this has been decided on because computers are increasingly capable of remote operation,

701
and the physical location of a computer in the development area would not necessarily have any significant effect on economic activity there.
My Lords, I do not think that a very good argument. The 40 per cent. is supposed to be a substitute for the depreciation allowances and investment allowances which industry is getting now, and the effect of this decision is to cut down the amount received now on computers in these areas from 40 per cent., or the equivalent of 40 per cent., to the new range of 20 per cent.; and this, I think, is a great pity. I should be glad to be corrected on this point, but I do not think that there is any investment grant at all for the peripheral machines, the input machines, which may be in an entirely different place from the computer, but which are necessary to enable the computer to do any work at all. I think it a matter for regret with respect to the future of the British computer industry that it should have had this reduction in the incentives to invest in the industry.
I hope very much that, whatever may happen politically, more will be done about computer production in this country. I do not think that a great deal has been done in the last year and a half. The Minister of Technology announced a national computer programme centre in March of last year. For seven months nothing at all seemed to happen about it. On December 7 last year he announced his national computing centre which incorporates on slightly wider lines than the programme centre. When asked a question three months later, on February 23, his answer was that there was no expenditure in connection with this for the year 1965–66. I do not think that this represents a very satisfactory rate of progress from a Minister who claimed that the Government were poised to swing their plans for science and technology into instant operation. My Lords, I hope very much that, whatever may happen in the next month or two, there will be, if not as much talk, at least a great deal more action than there has been in the last eighteen months.
3.27 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF TECHNOLOGY (LORD SNOW): My Lords, I am sure that your Lordships are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Byers, for initiating this
702
debate. I suspect that the subject may seem to some of your Lordships slightly more remote than those which have occupied a great deal of our time during the process of this Parliament, such subjects as sodomy, abortion and homicide. Yet the subject which we are discussing this afternoon is certain to touch more lives more deeply than any of these picturesque and more easily comprehensible topics to which I have had to listen without being able to speak. For we are stepping into a real revolution, a revolution which for want of a better name one might call the cybernetic revolution It will alter most working lives more than the Industrial Revolution ever did and we are very near to it —probably, in advanced countries, within ten years or fifteen years of the real, active results. This we know, and for this we have to be prepared.
I will take two trivial examples of the way in which it will alter the detail of our lives. By about 1975 it will be very unlikely that persons in advanced societies will ever again sign a cheque. Cheque signing is something which will disappear and become as obsolete as the quill pen. By a slightly later date we shall have to begin to think of producing a society used to a large amount of non-work. Probably about 10 per cent. of the population will have to work much harder and 90 per cent. will, in due course, almost certainly work much less. This will produce problems. As in the case of all revolutions, there will be losses as well as gains, but this is the kind of situation into which we are moving rapidly. That is why this debate has a much wider significance than would appear from the details. On this hangs our future; in fact, on this hangs a great deal of the way in which Western society will live.
The computer which is part, though only part, of this cybernetic revolution is the most wonderful machine ever invented by man. It is a deep and mysterious machine, very much more than a calculating machine. It stores information and is a method of sifting information rather like the human brain. It has disconcerting, philosophical consequences. It appears that there are some functions which no computer can calculate, but the same functions are certainly not calculable by the human brain. The limits of these two apparatuses in many respects appear to be the same.

703
It has had a romantic history. I want to spend a moment on this, because it leads me to the reason why at the moment we are behind in our computer development. Plenty of people had thought of these machines over the last hundred years, but the technique was not ready for them. A great mathematician called Babbage made himself miserable trying to make one of these machines before we had the electronic components, but he did great and wonderful work. It needed the development in electronics in the last war to make it possible. The first machines were developed in America. They called them ENIAC, which was worked on by a mathematician of genius, J. Von Neumann. But these were not computers as we now know them.
The first stored programme computer was made in this country. It was made, I would tell your Lordships with a certain nostalgia, in the laboratory in the University of Cambridge in 1949. Unfortunately neither we—that is, the general scientific community —nor the industrial community quite realised what we had got. There was some excuse for this because this was true also of the United States. Even as recently as 1949 people who later became leaders in the American computer industry were saying that perhaps four firms in America would want large computers, and in this country we were saying that two large computers would do everything we could possibly need. I can produce the references of these remarks.
I.B.M., which later dominated the world markets, went asleep, as one of their leaders said recently, until about 1954 and was only really actively in the market in 1956. Though we let opportunity slip, it was not so culpable as would seem from the start we actually had. Even so, this is a mistake which we cannot afford to make again. It was a lack of imagination and to some extent a lack of any idea of quantities. As the noble Lord, Lord Byers, said, numbers of people are always bigger than any sensible person expects. This was true of the number of computers which the world was going to want and should have received in the early 1950s.
There are two important parts of this programme for this country. The first
704
is the use of computers, getting them right round industry, not only as research tools but as tools in the whole of the manufacturing function. This is the thing on which I think all persons of sober judgment are agreed. This has to be done and it has to be done very fast The second problem, which is slightly more controversial, is whether we can support a British computer industry. There is a school of thought—I may say that I am passionately opposed to it—which thinks that we ought to buy this advanced technology from the United States. The arguments for it are exactly the same as they are for any other advanced technology: for a time it would probably be cheaper to buy from the United States.
I had the very unusual, perhaps unique privilege of testifying before a Congressional Committee before the end of January. I tried to tell our American colleagues that, though this country cannot possibly support all advanced technologies, it must support some and in these be as good as the Americans. I am sure that this must be so. We have to make certain clear and hard choices. We have to get out of some technologies and put every amount of what we have into others. I went a little further. Your Lordships will remember the Morgenthau Plan for Germany, which meant that Germany would have to give up industrial aspirations. I reminded the Congressional Committee that we should not be in favour of a Morgenthau Plan for Britain. This remark went down fairly well. Here I assure your Lordships that this has to be a conscious and determined choice. We must do something. As I told the Congressional Committee, if we do not keep as good as the Americans in certain parts of advanced technology, we shall be no good to ourselves, or to America, or to the world.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I have listened with great interest to what the noble Lord has been saying, and would entirely agree with the need for discrimination if we are applying this to ourselves alone. But would the noble Lord apply this to Western Europe? Does he think that Western Europe as a whole needs to contract out of certain advanced technologies?
LORD SNOW: That is an interesting but slightly different proposition. I

705
should have thought that some advanced technologies would probably have to be done in collaboration with Western Europe as a whole. Some we have got to do nationally and some we shall have to leave to the United States altogether. That is my guess, but that is a different point.
We discussed this matter a great deal long before October, 1964, and before this Government came into power there was a theme, a purpose and a plan. This could not be revealed because much of it involved commercial negotiations and other things, but it was perfectly clear in our minds from the moment we came into office. We knew what we wanted to achieve, given economic circumstances and all the trials and frustrations of government. If I may say so this afternoon, which happens to have a private significance for me, I am deeply satisfied to have been associated with this part of the Administration throughout.
The setting up of the Flowers Committee was one of the parts of this plan. It was not a unique event, but it was part of a deliberate plan. It was announced by my right honourable friend the Minister of Technology on March 1, 1965. It reported with extraordinary speed, as the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, said, in July and it was effectively decided to implement it in a statement by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science in December. This is pretty good going for any Government at any time and certainly for a Government in the midst of economic stress. I should like to associate myself most warmly with the tribute paid to Professor Brian Flowers and his colleagues—a special pleasure for me to know that an old friend and fine scientist has done this service to the State. The Report has been accepted as a whole.
The noble Lord, Lord Byers, was slightly mystified, I think, by the difference between the universities and the Research Councils. The £20·5 million for the universities is for the universities alone on account of running costs, building, and additional operations, so I think that he can rest assured that all recommended work is in fact due to happen. The spread over six years rather than five was of course a concession to the economic situation, and seems to be not an unreasonable one in the light of the turmoil
706
in which we found ourselves. We might have done much worse. Five-sixths of a loaf is better than no bread. As the noble Lord will see from the Flowers Report, the later years of its programme are slightly less clear than the first. Therefore, the actual loss or delay will be comparatively small. To give your Lordships an idea of the expenditure over the next three years, it will be £3 million a year, rather than the average of half a million pounds, which has been true for the last four or five years. Multiplying expenditure on university computers by six seems to me to be an effort with which any Government ought to be pleased. I believe that this Government should be given at least a moderate supply of generosity from the House in regard to the effort which they have made in this respect.
The position of Research Councils is slightly different, because they have their own finance. Computers are natural research tools, and many of the recommendations of the Flowers Report were already contained in the Research Councils' programmes. But I can assure the noble Lord that almost all that the Flowers Report recommends will be brought into effect by the Research Councils themselves. This is a Report of great importance, which is going into operation very nearly as it stands.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, I should like to ask the noble Lord one question. I wonder if it is right to have this across-the-board method and to get five-sixths of what was promised. Would the noble Lord not say that if the economic situation improves, as we are promised that it will improve, this matter might be looked at again? From all points of view, I should have thought that the acceptance of the proposals in the Flowers Report in toto was most important.
LORD SNOW: My Lords, I think we must leave that for the next Government. The administration of this expenditure was announced by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science, as the noble Lord, Lord Byers, said. A Computer Board is being set up which is to act as a sort of successor body to the Flowers Committee. For the moment, its constitution and functions have not been brought to finality, but in order to avoid any delay,

707
an interim panel has already been set up and is working. This has not yet been announced, and I am glad to announce it now in your Lordships' House. It will consist of Sir Willis Jackson, Professor Black and Dr. Roberts, the latter two being members of the Flowers Committee. This panel has already met twice. Its function is to implement the Flowers Report in detail; that is, to get the computers to the universities.
Here I am glad to be able to reply to the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, that the panel, next Monday, March 7, will be considering the computer for Queen's College, Dundee, in which I may say that I am as interested as the noble Earl, as I was once Rector of the University of St. Andrews. There is a slight complication, because the Flowers Committee recommended an I.C.T. computer. For various reasons, Queen's College want an Elliot machine. They are machines of roughly the same capacity. This, no doubt, will be discussed by the panel, but we hope that it will not be more than a few weeks before one of these computers is ordered; and it should be in operation at the latest by September, 1967, although we hope it may be before.
The application of all this to industry is, of course, of the most vital concern. We have to spread this expertness over the whole field of industry. We have to face from the start the fact that we are going to get the most formidable American competition; anyone who knows American industry knows that it has a certain dynamic and a certain law of its own. On the other hand, we thought it wrong to say that we should buy only British computers. This would have been unrealistic; it would have done harm; it would have impeded the development of our own computer industry, and would have been a serious setback to the universities and Research Councils concerned. Therefore, we, in a good pragmatic British fashion, said that if we could not get a British computer of similar performance within about the same time, then we should have to buy American: but clearly we should not do this unless we were forced to. The result is that about 80 per cent. of these purchases will be from British firms. This seems to me to be a reasonable compromise—in fact, rather better than a
708
compromise. We have every hope that when we next have to make this choice we shall be able to do much better. This is just the first of these big operations. We believe that the industry, which is making great progress, will shortly be able to make it possible for us not to have to buy so many American machines. This has been carefully studied, and we think that, on the whole, the Flowers Committee and the Ministries have made reasonable decisions.
The decisions flowing from the Flowers Report are only part of this entire coherent plan, which, as I have told your Lordships, was in being in people's minds, and largely on paper, as early as October, 1964. Since that time we have bought nearly £5 million worth of computers for Government establishments and other Government institutions. We have nearly £8 million worth of computers on order for the same kind of purpose. The N.R.D.C., as your Lordships probably know, supported I.C.T. to the extent of £5 million, and the first £1 million of that has already been allocated to its proper use by agreement between the firm and the Corporation. Elliott's have also received the same kind of financial support. All this is part of the determination to see that we have an industry—and the only one in the world except the American and Russian industries—which can stand on its own feet. Unless we are independent here, we are not really technologically independent anywhere. But there are only two in the world at the moment that are viable, the American and the Russian, and we are determined to be the third.
The problem of computer education is, as the noble Lord probably knows, something that has been one of my private pets and concerns. The figures are formidable. At the moment, we have in this country just over 1,000 computers working. By 1970, we shall have more than 3,000. I am deliberately taking a pessimistic attitude. I hope that the figures will be much larger. It ought to be nearly 5,000 or 6,000; but it will certainly be more than 3,000. To cope with these computers we want really large numbers of people. The present number of systems analysers and designers working on computers is about 5,000. We shall need by 1970, 15,000. The number of programmers at present at work is 8,000. By 1970 we

709
shall need 24,000. And any experience I have had with figures or people suggests that all these are underestimates and not overestimates.
We have already set up an interdepartmental committee which has been working with the universities on the part they can play. It is a very complex business. Let me describe some of the steps to your Lordships. First of all, there is the step to provide short courses to give management the feel of it, a point to which the noble Lord referred. We have to get at least the sort of climate of computers right through the board rooms of British industry; and not only the big ones but the small and more humble ones, too. We have to train the systems analysers and the systems designers. These are rather different animals, but they will both need strict professional training; and they have to be in this from the undergraduate period. Some of them may not necessarily be scientists. You can get quite good systems analysers from all sorts of environments; some classicists have been rather successful at it.
Programmers, I think, are really an easier problem. Oddly enough, this may become the new classical cottage industry of the 1970s, because experiments have been made with the use of intelligent women labour, women who would otherwise be reading detective stories or doing crossword puzzles—activities rather similar to programming a computer—and on a small scale this has been remarkably successful. Working four hours a day, a team of women in London has done astonishingly good work in programming. We believe that this could be extended all over the country. It would bring in a nice addition to the family income and prevent a good deal of mischief being done.
By 1980 I should guess that nearly all university students will at least know what computers mean and what they do. This is already happening. I do not know how much the noble Lord travels to schools of various types and the regional colleges or universities. In good regional colleges of technology and in good secondary schools of all kinds it is quite difficult to escape computers altogether. Very soon a computer will be as natural a piece of equipment in a decent secondary school as a typewriter. It will be something that people will miss
710
if it is not there. They will not go to a firm if it has not a computer, and they will be very cross if their school has not a computer. This is going to happen; this is going to be part of the future.
As I said at the beginning, I do not want to mislead your Lordships. Any extraordinary change, such as this is hound to mean, brings losses as well as gains. It will make us richer and will give us more leisure. This will happen all over the advanced world. It will probably, unless we are very careful, mean that people will feel even more lost than they do now. In the present jargon, it is called alienation. There is a danger that this will mean more alienation and we must foresee the future and use our energies to ameliorate it as far as we can. There is no excuse not to foresee some of these events. The first Industrial Revolution took us by surprise. This one will not. We know what is going to happen, within reasonable limits, and therefore we have to cope with such awkward results. This is going to be one of the tasks for the next generation and a half. But we have to do it. It is the only way in which this society can remain prosperous, play its part in the world and really fulfil all that we need of it.
I should like to end on a rather odd note. I believe, and have believed for many years, that the only real chance of the world is that the United States and the Soviet Union, with us playing what part we can, should leach some kind of understanding. I believe, curiously enough, that the domination of computers is going to make this appreciably easier. The Russians have taken to this particular art in an enormous way. They call it a super-science. It is true that their machines, at least the ones in ordinary operation, are what the computer boys call a generation behind ours or the Americans. I should say that a generation of computers means about three years. But I cannot believe that that is entirely true. It must have taken a wonderful computer to get soft landings on the moon. The important thing is that they are thinking about this much more deeply and continuously than we are. Cybernetics has now become the most fashionable word in intellectual discussions in the Soviet Union. This may bring between them, the United

711
States and us a kind of common understanding which we do not often have in other than detailed ways. We can have detailed understanding in music, bits of science, and some parts of literature, but we have not a common metaphysic. I believe that this super-science may produce this common metaphysic, and so be of inestimable benefit to the world.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I ask whether he is going to say anything about the Atlas computer in London?
LORD SNOW: I must apologise to the noble Lord. We have a certain division of labour on these Benches, and my noble friend Lord Shackleton will answer this question in detail.

PRICING OF AVIATION CONTRACTS
3.55 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, I should like to intervene to repeat a Statement which is being made by my right honourable friend the Minister of Aviation in another place on the pricing of Ministry of Aviation contracts. The Statement is as follows:
"When my predecessor made a statement on the Second Report of Sir John Lang's inquiry into the pricing of Ministry of Aviation contracts [OFFICIAL. REPORT, Commons, February 9, 1965; Written Answers, Col. 63], he said that a number of the conclusions and recommendations about contracts and procedures were in line with views already formed in the Department, and that action on them was in hand. He pointed out that others would need a good deal of study; but he specifically welcomes one important recommendation in the Report, which also accorded with the view expressed by the Public Accounts Committee: namely, that there should be equality of information between the Ministry and its contractors up to the time prices are fixed.
"Since then the Government have given these matters further consideration, and there have been preliminary discussions with industry. Our view
712
is that equality of information ought, as Sir John Lang suggested, to be secured by means of a contract condition, and that any uncertainties in existing conditions and procedures should now be resolved. The Government also believe that post-costing, which provides knowledge of the out-turn of completed contracts, is an essential part of equality of information (except when contracts are priced by competitive tender). The Lang Report argued that post-costing would conflict with the principle underlying fixed price contracts, and diminish their effectiveness as incentives. But follow-on orders form a very substantial part of the field for fixed price contracts, and Departments cannot get full equality of information for such orders unless they have post-costing. Post-costing also provides a valuable check on the reliability of Departments' own estimates and on the pricing information supplied by firms. It is not of course necessary, nor is it the Government's intention, that post-costing should be used to renegotiate prices for contracts already placed. But post-costing does mean that profits grossly in excess of those allowed for when prices are negotiated (as in the Ferranti case) will be brought to light; and, in such cases, the Government will not be precluded from seeking some reimbursement outside the terms of the contract.
"Revised standard contract conditions securing the Government's rights to equality of information (including post-costing) are now being drafted and will shortly be discussed with the representatives of industry. Meanwhile, we hope to have the co-operation of all the firms concerned as fresh contracts are placed.
"My predecessor also said that the Government would review the profit formula, and would take account of the comments of industry in doing so, as Sir John Lang's Report suggested. The Government are engaged upon their own review, and are now inviting comments from industry. In this review, attention is being paid to the encouragement of efficiency and to incomes and prices policy.
"The Government propose to review the situation afresh, in the light of

713
progress in all these discussions, in six months' time, in order to see if further action is needed to secure the rights they require."
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for repeating this Statement. I should have been even more grateful if the Government had managed to make it yesterday, because, as your Lordships will recall, we were discussing the aircraft industry and this very question came up. I think it would have been helpful if we could have had the Statement yesterday and, for that matter, it would have been more courteous to the House, although I acquit the noble Lord who has repeated the Statement, and the Government, of any intentional discourtesy.
In the Statement it is said that the Lang Committee recommended against post-costings, and as I understand it, recommended on this admittedly very difficult question in fairly firm language. May I ask two questions of the noble Lord? First, in the Statement it is said that it is not the Government's intention that post-costings should be used to renegotiate prices for contracts already placed, and then, later, that nevertheless the Government will not be precluded from seeking some reimbursement from the firms concerned outside the terms of the contract. Can the noble Lord say what practical difference that means for the firms concerned? Secondly, I notice that there will be discussions—and I am glad that this is so—between the Government and industry, both on the question of post-costings and on the possible new profit formula. I take it that this means that these two factors, which are closely linked, will be, or could be, discussed at one and the same time?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, first of all I would apologise to the House for not being in a position to deal with this yesterday and I am grateful to the noble Earl for acquitting me personally of discourtesy. The fact that I adverted to this myself at one point was, I am sorry to say, purely coincidental.
The noble Earl has asked why the Government in this respect have differed from the Lang Report. I think it is important to appreciate that the Lang objections, which were fairly well
714
balanced—that Committee saw the advantages of it also—were against the background of the possibility of renegotiating a fixed price contract following the post-costing; and this the Government are not intending to do. Then the noble Lord goes on, quite reasonably, to ask what is the difference between that and the Government's statement that in certain circumstances they might seek reimbursement. There is an important difference. There would be no contractual obligation on the company, any more than there was in the Ferranti incident, to repay, and although in a matter as delicate as this, which is still subject to negotiation, I would not wish to speak with final authority, it is not my understanding that this technique would be applied, except perhaps in rather more serious instances. Indeed, one would hope that it would not be applied; and I myself should not regard the Ferranti incident as in any way typical of the action on the part of contractors in their dealings with the Government.
As the Lang Report says, there is, after all, moral responsibility on the contractor not to exploit the nation unfairly in defence contracts; and, if I may say so, I should have thought this was consistent also with general commercial morality, certainly in those parts of industry with which I am familiar. But if there were an excess profit, in such circumstances the Government might seek reimbursement, although I would hope it would never arise. Indeed I think the objections of industry to this proposal do not rest on this particular point.
I do not think I can answer the question whether the new profit formula and this particular question of post-costing will be discussed at one and the same time, because I am not myself familiar with the way in which these negotiations are being carried out. But I do not doubt that satisfactory discussions will take place on them, and I can see that there is a definite relationship between the two. May I also add that post-costing is a well-established, familiar technique in the United States of America, where it is normally practised, and where in fact they do not go in for fixed price contracts to the same extent as we do in this country.
LORD WADE: My Lords, would the noble Lord agree that, in the type of contract considered in the Lang Report, the Ministry is often the most important customer and therefore it is in the interests of industry and the Government that there should be as much co-operation and exchange of information as possible? My second point is the more specific one on the question of post-costing. I understand from the Statement that post-costing is to be regarded as an essential part of equality of information except where the contracts are priced by competitive tender. I take it, therefore, that where the contract is placed with one concern and the firm estimates its profit margin and takes the risk involved, afterwards it will be expected, under this new procedure, that information will be disclosed as to the profit made and the anticipated profit margin on future orders?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord, agreeing with the views of the Government on equality of information. His understanding of the meaning of the Statement in regard to competitive tendering is in fact the same as my own, but I can see circumstances even here where post-costing may seem to become necessary, although, having enunciated the principles, I think that is as far as I can go now.

COMPUTERS FOR RESEARCH
4.7 p.m.
Debate resumed.
LORD BOWDEN: My Lords, I should like, if I may, to begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Byers, for introducing this subject to us this afternoon. I would also add my thanks to those which Professor Flowers has already had for the very great State document which he has presented to us. It is the first time that this subject has been publicly displayed, and I do not believe that the world of universities or the world of computers can ever be quite the same again.
It is extremely appropriate that this subject should be discussed in your Lordships' House, for it is now about 130 years since the noble Lady, the Lady Lovelace, wrote a book about computers, describing their properties in very great detail. It gave me great pleasure to
716
arrange for her text to be reprinted a few years ago, for it was so lucid as to invalidate a whole series of master patents which were hopefuly being filed in America by IBM 110 years after the lady had died. In 1830 Miss Byron, as she then was—and I believe that many of her descendants, grandchildren and great grandchildren, are still Members of your Lordships' House—went to see Mr. Babbage's famous calculating engine, which she subsequently so lucidly described. It was said by a member of that party, a Mrs. De Morgan:
" Despite the very great beauty of the instrument, it had the same impact upon the spectators as the sound of a gun or the sight of himself in a mirror is alleged to have upon the savages of Central Africa ".
I sometimes think the world has changed very little in 130 years, for most people still seem to think of computers as incomprehensible, as magic, and as not for them. But it is important to realise that computers are now very big business indeed. Every year there is published a list of the great firms of the world in their order of size, and the great firm which makes computers in America, whose name has been frequently referred to this afternoon, rose last year in this list from 18th to 9th. Its profits were as big as those of Imperial Chemical Industries and the British Motor Corporation put together twice over. My Lords, this is enormously big business. A large modern computer costs more than a large modern jet airliner. It is even more complex in its manifestations and in its detail, and it probable costs just as much to develop. It is essential, if we discuss this subject this afternoon, that we do so with a proper appreciation of the order of magnitude, the scope of these things and their potential importance.
I do not wish to take up the time of the House by describing computers in detail, but there are some things about them that we must remember. About 5,000 years ago the ancient astronomers were able to do remarkably detailed numerical calculations from which, for example, they evaulated the precession of the equinoxes. By the beginning of the last war, about 1939, mankind had at its disposal desk calculating machines, slide rules, elaborate lists of tables, ready reckoners and so on, and we were able to do arithmetic about three hundred times as fast as the ancients of 3,000 years

717
ago. The first computers that were introduced in 1950 were about three hundred times as fast as good calculators had been before the war. That is to say, a change in speed which had taken 3,000 years to achieve was matched in one single stage by the introduction of a new machine. And may I remind your Lordships that the whole of modern science as it existed before the war, the whole of accountancy, the whole of Government, depended entirely on arithmetic done as it was in those days.
This extraordinary achievement of computers is only the beginning of the story. Machines now in production and in use are three thousand times as fast as what we now regard as the crude, primitive, inefficient machines of 1952 or 1953. And the consequence of this is that a modern computing machine is one million times as fast as a good man. This means it can do in a few seconds as much work as a good competent clerk can do in a lifetime.
This ratio of speed is hard to grasp. We are familiar, I think, with the fact that a modern rocket, going to Venus perhaps, may go at 25,000 or 30,000 miles an hour. This is perhaps ten thousand times as fast as a man can walk. But these machines are much faster than the rocket compared with the man walking. In fact, the only fair comparison is that a machine can increase the output of a man in much the same way as the printing press can increase the output of a man inscribing letters one by one on an obelisk. This means they are changing not merely the speed at which we can do things but the type of thing we can do.
The whole of our modern society, the Press, education, depend entirely on the printing press. I believe it to be literally true that the computing machine will have as great an impact on society as the printing press itself, and that is why it is so important that we in your Lordships' House should discuss computers. Several noble Lords have already said that their impact on engineering and science has been quite fundamental and profound. It is certainly true to say that modern science, as we now know it, modern engineering, aircraft, atomic reactors, and the machinery of our great industries would be wholly impossible even now without computers.
718
But there are other aspects of these machines and their uses which are likely to be, in my opinion, even more important in the future, because computers are capable not only of doing arithmetic but of processing information, of storing enormous quantities of information and performing operations upon it. We have already been told that the statistics of the Board of Trade are always late and always unreliable. This is true. The Board of Trade does its best, but the Board of Trade is not yet properly computerised, as, for example, is the Bureau of Commerce in America. I believe the operations of the Treasury and the operations of the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be transformed if he knew in detail with what figures he was really concerned to-day, and not merely the figures which were perhaps right six or eight months ago. Old-fashioned statistics may be extremely useful to an historian engaged in recording the decline and fall of British trade, but they are of no use at all to the Chancellor in trying to influence the fiscal policy of the country. It was Mr. Macmillan who, in another place, said that the Chancellor of the Exchequer finds himself in the position of a man trying to go about the country, looking up his trains in an out-of-date Bradshaw. Here is an extremely important part of the whole structure of the country which is capable of being transformed by the use of these great machines.
Here I come to a very remarkable fact of contemporary society, which is this: that most institutions are extremely unwilling and slow to analyse themselves and their own operations. It is certainly true to say that universities will study almost any organisation rather than themselves. Anthropologists in Manchester, for example, will study the sexual habits of Trobrian Islanders with much more enthusiasm than those of their undergraduates. Be this as it may, it is certainly true to say the Treasury has been extremely slow to consider the possible introduction of new types of technique which could transform its own operations.
If one categorises industries, it is true to say that most of them spend a reasonably large fraction of their turnover on research into their techniques. For example, the aircraft industry, which we discussed yesterday, spends perhaps 15

719
or 20 per cent. of its profits on "R. and D." of various kinds. Most industries in this country spend at least a significant fraction of 1 per cent. of their total output on investigating their own techniques. I was startled to discover not long ago that the Ministry of Education spends a fraction of its "turnover", if I can so describe it, which is about £1,500 million a year, amounting to less than one-hundredth of the amount spent by the most backward of British industries on investigating how it can improve its own performance. I think the fraction of the money which is handled by the Treasury so spent must be even less than that, because for years the Treasury has worked on the assumption that it can buy its techniques and machines from the cheapest source and it should take no initiative at all in developing them.
It is, I think, pathetic and tragic, little less than a national scandal, that when the first attempt was made in England seriously to analyse the structure of the community, the rate of economic growth and the effect of a 3 to 4 per cent. growth rate, the work was done in Cambridge by Professor Dick Stone, and he had to get the money to do it from America. What obligation has the Ford Foundation to accept responsibility for the first systematic study of the economy of this country? And yet they did it. They did it five or six years ago, and it is only very recently that the Treasury has accepted the responsibility for taking the work over and financing it for them; and the Treasury would not have done it had not the Ford Foundation very properly said, "We have done our part; now you can do yours."
I think that the effect of computers on economics, on medicine and on the social sciences will be vastly greater in the next few years than it has been hitherto on enginering and science. But since we are speaking in this House, I would suggest to your Lordships another, and even more important, application of computers: the application of computers to the law. The problems of the law as I see them—and I speak as a complete layman—are made vexatiously worse than they should be because of the enormous amount of data with which the wretched lawyer is confronted, the tremendous spate of new legislation which no man can read; and the extraordinary
720
complexity of the phraseology which is used in Acts. I remember, and will remind your Lordships of, the Rent Bill which we recently voted upon. As one of your Lordships subsequently said, it was an extraordinarily bad example of legislation by reference; it was, in fact, quite incomprehensible without the assistance of a large number of other documents which did not come with the Bill. This seems to be an inevitable part of legislation as we know it to-day; and it is necessary for any practising lawyer to have at his elbow a substantial library to which he has access immediately and with the contents of which he is extremely familiar, so that he can find the leading cases on the law as well as the appropriate legislation fairly quickly.
A computer is capable of doing this. A modern computer can have a memory much larger than the largest law library in this country. Furthermore, it can gain access to any part of it extremely quickly. So it is perfectly possible for a large computer to provide a lawyer with a list of appropriate references, Acts of Parliament or, if you like, leading cases, if the information is in the machine and appropriate questions are posed to it.
But this is only the beginning of the potential application of the machine. he noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack has many times told us of the extreme complexity of the task of his law reformers and of the grave problems with which they are confronted in discovering what the law is, and whether the law is itself consistent: in other words, whether the citizen is enjoined by one section of it to do something which he is forbidden expressly to do by another Act of Parliament. It is difficult enough if one is drawing up a quite simple contract which is full of various conditional clauses to make certain that it is of itself entirely self-consistent. But when one considers the mass of the law, it seems to me that this task is virtually impossible.
On the other hand, the processes through which a lawyer must go are based always on arguments: "If so and so, then something else must follow. If something else has been done, then something else must not follow." In other words, the processes are logical; they are based on reasoning—at least, we hope

721
they are—and they are based upon the facts of the case and the law as it is known. The processes of logical reasoning are precisely things which a computer can do with extraordinary speed. A modern machine is a million times as fast as a man and will do the work at perhaps one ten-thousandth of the cost. I therefore hope that the noble and learned Lord who sits upon the Woolsack will perhaps pursuade his Committee of law reformers to see how far the task upon which these people are engaged can be facilitated by the use of a modern computer.
The word "jurimetrics" has already been coined by the Bar of New York State to describe this process. All the statute law of the State of Philadelphia has already been recorded in the memory of a large computer machine over there. I think the idea has great potential. The work is just beginning. The tasks will be vexatious; they will be difficult; they will be time-consuming. I can assure any man who tries to do it that there will be moments of despair when he will decide that the prospect is hopeless; but I can also assure him that this is the common lot of people who use computers, anti in the end these machines' extreme speed and fantastic ability to reason and to process data will come to his aid. I feel certain that this is the kind of enterprise in which the application of this vastly powerful technique to an ancient and traditional society will be extremely advantageous.
My Lords, there are many other things that computers can and should do, but I should like briefly to try to describe to your Lordships why it has come about that we in this country are at this moment so relatively backward, despite the fact that in the early part of the 1950s this country and America were the only places in the world where computers were either built or understood. Poor Mr. Babbage broke his heart in an unsuccessful attempt to struggle with the British Treasury.
We have computers in this country for one most curious and relatively unknown reason. About 1949, Sir Ben Lockspeiser, who was then the Secretary of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, wandered into Manchester University and found a young man there struggling with a vastly complex and
722
incomprehensible piece of machinery. They had a most difficult conversation, after which Sir Ben went to a local firm and instructed them to build equipment to Dr. Kilburn's specification. I believe I am right in saying that it took five years thereafter to get the paperwork straight. Had it not been for this extremely farsighted gesture on the part of a great public servant—a gesture which I believe, in a fundamental sense, was quite irresponsible—we should never have had computers in this country at all. We had them only as a result of a series of accidents. But the point is really this: that although, as I have said, we began very well fifteen years ago, we have been almost totally outclassed by the Americans, ever since.
The reason is fairly clear. First of all, they have their bigger market. Then, of course, I.B.M. was a wealthy firm. But there is another reason, and this is crucial. It is that the American Government, almost from the beginning, decided that computers are important, that they must be developed and that they must have from the Government the kind of support which traditionally we in this country have reserved for the aircraft industry. The consequence was that they helped their industry by giving contracts, by discussions, by attempts to help to produce new specifications, and by attempts to forecast demand and the best type of machine to build—this at a time when our own Government took not the slightest notice of the industry and ignored it.
About 1952 or 1953 we tried to sell to our own Atomic Energy Commission a modern, as it was then, English computer. The reaction which we got was quite simply this: "It looks a good machine. If you can build half a dozen and sell four abroad, then I will buy one." This was at a time when in America the American Atomic Energy Commission was in detailed and day-to-day discussion with great American firms specifying machines which we then had to buy from them five years later. I believe that this has been the prime reason why our own industry is relatively so backward.
I was myself at one time the Chairman of the Electronics Research Council. We had to report to the Minister of Aviation, as he then was, Mr. Amery. We made a plea in our Report for Government

723
support for computers on a substantial scale. I remember that subsequently I was able to see a senior Treasury official and to discuss our proposals with him. I talked about the immense significance of these machines, of their great potential, of the immense significance of this new industry which I believe to be the most important, probably, of all the growing industries in the world, and of the part that had been played in the build-up of this industry in America particularly by Government action. He was wholly unsympathetic, and I felt, after a time, that I was in the presence of one of the last survivors of mid-Victorian—or should I say Gladstonian?—laissez-faire Liberalism. I recall that Mr. Gladstone once said that:
" Poverty is not the concern of the House of Commons."
In much the same way it was clear that the computer industry was at that time of no concern to the Treasury. This official told me that he was announcing the considered view of the Government, but I wondered then, and I have wondered since, quite often, whether it was not truer to say that the Government, as it then was, was rationalising and justifying the policy of the Treasury. It has given me an enormous personal pleasure to see that this Government is taking this problem more seriously and is at last beginning to understand the importance of Government support for the computer industry.
To give some idea of the difficulties with which we have had to struggle, I will mention this. Of six prototypes for new types of machine which were designed by a great firm during the 1950s, no fewer than four had to be sold abroad. There can be no more difficult experience for any commercial representative than to try to go abroad and sell a computer when his own Government does not have enough confidence in it to buy it until it has been approved abroad. I believe that the American triumph—for it is little less than a triumph—has been due, at least as to more than half, to the enormous support which the industry has consistently had from the American Government since it first began about fifteen years ago.
At this particular moment in time, as is always the case in the computer industry,
724
we are wondering what to do next. I would remind your Lordships that in the Flowers Report, which is an admirable and informative document, there are references to several new big machines which must be procured from somewhere in the early 'seventies. I say categorically that if we do not do something about it soon, we shall have to buy American in 1975 and thereafter, but I also believe, equally categorically, that if appropriate action is taken almost immediately, it will undoubtedly be possible to build by 1970 machines of the quality we need.
The Flowers Report suggests that we should rent computing machines of great size, about 68 or 69. I am told that I.B.M. have changed their policy, and are now refusing to rent these machines and are insisting that they should be bought. If this is true, I would ask the Government whether it would not be better forthwith to place a contract with some part of the British industry so that a machince of adequate size could be made. I have discussed this matter with the people who built the Atlas machine and with many other engineers. They tell me that if action is taken speedily, and on a sufficiently generous scale, we could make a machine in England adequate for all possible purposes by about 1969 or 1970. If we do this, we shall have a viable British industry. If we do not it will not survive.
The great machine of to-day is the middling-size machine of to-morrow, and the small machine of the day after. The amount of computing which is necessary is growing almost twofold every year. The cheapest way of doing sums is to do them on a big machine, as the Flowers Report tells us. I beg the Government seriously to consider the possibility of giving a contract to a major English firm so that, in the fullness of time, when otherwise we shall be dependent on America in the 1970s, we shall be able to depend on our own unaided efforts. It is always true that if one wants "one-off" of any particular new device it pays to buy it abroad and to let someone else do the expensive business of developing it. This is true of aircraft, of motor-cars—and of film stars; and it is certainly true of computers. On the other hand, if we do not as a country take a firm line and build up industries

725
which we are eminently capable of building up, which our engineers understand and which are so suitable as growth points, unless we subsidise and develop them, then the future for this country in the modern world is bleak indeed.
I was myself the first man ever to try to sell commercial machines anywhere in the world. I was the sole member of an extraordinary, exclusive profession, and I believe that the second recruit was General Douglas MacArthur. I remember going to America and trying to explain to them the advantages of the machine we then had. I discovered that it was quite impossible, because of the "Buy American" Act, to sell in America machines made outside America. They were refusing, as a matter of national policy, to allow this great industry, the future of which they then foresaw, to be in any way obstructed by the introduction of machines from outside. I can hardly tell your Lordships how difficult it is to go to America and to find that one is completely inhibited from selling there, and then to come back here and find that as a matter of course we believe that it is cheaper to buy American. No industry can survive under this double handicap.
I have said that the American industry is enormous. Professor Flowers has given some figures in his Report about the enormously greater size of the investment in universities. In 1964 the Americans installed 5,000 million dollars' worth of computers, of which 200 million dollars' worth were in universities. This sum is at least three or four times the amount of the total expenditure under the Flowers Report over a period of six years. So that nobody can reasonably say that the Flowers Report is extravagant or overoptimistic. But what worries me so much more than that is the extent to which we are no longer pre-eminent in Europe. Until very recently no computers were being made in the world except in America and England. Last year, both France and Germany surpassed our output. This was not because of their indigenous industries, but because American industry had bought its way into Europe and was building up there.
Of all the machines now installed in Europe, Germany made £170 million worth, France £45 million worth, American £39 million, and this country
726
only £35 million worth. In other words, our fraction of the total European sales is down to something less than 17 or 20 per cent. This is a situation which has come about almost within the last three or four years and is due entirely to the way in which the American firms have bought themselves into the European market. This year the situation is quite bad because, for the first time, France has superseded Germany as the largest supplier of computer machines in Europe. In the last six months of 1965 France supplied, for the very first time, more machines than either Germany or America, and, of course, they were machines made under the general auspices of great American firms.
The American Government has always been extremely careful about the dangers of monopoly, and in order to ensure that the computer industry in America grew they helped their great firms all they could. Then, in order to make sure that no single firm monopolised the market, they give contracts to other smaller firms, who have built machines which are being installed all over the world. I remember that in my conversation with the Treasury official I said to him that it would be dreadful if this country were less careful to prevent one American firm from establishing a monopoly here than the American Government is to prevent I.B.M. from establishing a monopoly in the United States. Unless we do something to help our industry, this situation of a virtual monopoly by one firm may occur here before it occurs in America.
Nevertheless, the situation is not so bleak as it might appear to be. Some of our machines have been tremendously successful. The Atlas has been frequently criticised, but a large machine which was installed in Geneva—a machine which was confidently said to be several times faster than Atlas, and is now working very well—is proving, in practice, to be only about two-thirds as fast as Atlas, which was unsuccessful in competition with it. Our machines are very good. I would remark, too (and I hope that I may be forgiven by your Lordships for mentioning names), that the situation of our own industry is astonishingly like that of I.B.M. in 1957. At that time they were beginning to sell machines in large numbers, and the firm was virtually bankrupt. They owed to

727
the bank more than the total assets of the firm. Since then they have borrowed and paid back about 1,000 million dollars —which is the kind of sum that we in England are familiar with only when we have to borrow to bolster the pound —and they are now making greater profits than the two largest English firms put together.
At this moment, I think, the situation in England is not dissimilar. For the first time the industry is making and selling machines in very large numbers. It is beginning to get out of the red, though from the accounts I read on the Stock Exchange, I still think that its position in the formal sense is perhaps not as strong as it should be. The potential is there, however, and with the support of the Government, and the help which I think the industry is entitled to receive, not only from the Government but from the great national organisations, such as the Treasury, the banks, the Atomic Energy Commission, the Electricity Board and so on, all may be well.
I should like to congratulate the Government, and thank them for the initiative they have shown in setting up the National Computer Centre in Manchester. It is likely, I think, to transform the problem of co-ordination of demand as between different possible consumers. For many years the Electricity Board and the Gas Council, for example, have independently approached computer manufacturers to ask for designs. We are familiar with the idea that, as soon as the gas board has dug up a road and laid it down, the electricity board will take it up again. This situation is traditional, and I am glad to say is now almost forgotten. The situation in computers has been just as foolish until recently, but now for the first tune I think it will be resolved.
I know very well the people who are going to run this enterprise. They are men of very great competence, and if they have the support which they have a right to expect they will make a tremendous impact on the users of computers. For it is always important to remember that the problem of using computers is invariably more difficult than the problem of building them. I can best draw an analogy by saying that the task of use is as much more complex than the task
728
of building as the task of the R.A.F. is as much more complex than the task of the original manufacturers of the aircraft which the R.A.F. has to use.
The problems of organisation and use are always tedious, difficult, time-consuming, immensely rewarding to solve and at times very frustrating. The same is true of computers. I therefore feel that the Flowers Report is tremendously to be welcomed, because it displays very clearly one aspect of this vast problem. Now that the Government have accepted the Report, it begins to be possible to expect that there will be adequate numbers of men who understand these machines; that they will be able to use them, once they have left the university and gone out into the world. But we must not get our priorities wrong, or our orders of magnitude wrong. The total sum at stake in this is £20 million. I believe I am right in saying that the manufacturers have sold £60 million of one model which is made in this country and they have done so in less than a year. The Flowers Report refers to a small but vital component of the most important and most rapidly growing industry in this country. We are indebted most deeply both to Professor Flowers for producing his Report, and to the noble Lord, Lord Byers, for introducing it to us this afternoon.
4.46 p.m.
LORD AMULRFE: My Lords, I should like to join with other noble Lords who have already spoken, in expressing my pleasure that the Government have shown their willingness to accept the recommendation of the Flowers Report, but I share the doubts expressed by my noble friend Lord Byers whether it was really necessary to make a five-year operation into a six-year one. I am bound to say I was not very convinced by the explanation given by the noble Lord, Lord Snow, as to why that needed to be done. But I think we must be pleased that the Report had been accepted, and that my noble friend has seen fit to put down a Motion for debate in your Lordships' House.
I want to touch very briefly on one aspect which has not been much mentioned hitherto in this debate, and that is the medical and biological side of computer work. I must say, to start with, that I know nothing at all about the

729
working of computers. I went to a short course on computer work, but I did not do that to learn the way to work a computer. I went on that course to get some idea of what a computer could do and what a computer could not do. I think it is extremely important to get that fixed in one's mind.
The work which a computer can do from a medical angle ranges over a very big field. It ranges from the quite simple and elementary data, such as listing and sorting of the kind which one associates with other commercial uses of the computer, to the very complicated and difficult numerical calculations dealing with purely scientific work and scientific research. Computers will, I think, be used more for the collecting of simple data and for the evaluation of complicated scientific work than for what might be called the normal medical work, if only because of the very large amount of data which must be collected for what one associates with normal routine medical work. So there is the problem that, before the computer can be of real value in that field, we must find some way by which the amount of data required can be reduced, because in the general field of biological experiments—I take that example to cover the medical point—the amount of data is such that it is sometimes difficult to process it in a way that is sufficiently simple to make a programme.
One of the troubles in the medical use of computers is that we tend to fall between two stools, because one type of computer will be supplied by the Ministry of Health and the other type will be supplied by the University Grants Committee. Although the money will come in the first place from the Treasury, it will come through two different channels which will make it a little difficult at times for the medical profession to put their claims in the right kind of way. The Ministry of Health will need a computer to do the ordinary, rather simple work of dealing with staffing and financial questions, and getting out reports which, in the normal course of events, take about twelve months to produce but which could be produced by a computer in a corresponding number of minutes or possibly of seconds. Then there will be the experimental scientific work to which I have referred,
730
which will be work properly done by the University Grants Committee.
I can give your Lordships an example from the University College Hospital at which I work. That has a small computer which has been there for about a couple of years, but at University College across the way they have just installed a big computer which it is hoped and expected the hospital will be able to use for some of their work. So it shows that the teaching hospitals, certainly, have probably got to serve two masters: one is the Ministry of Health and one is the University Grants Committee. It is obviously quite impossible, or quite impracticable, for a teaching hospital—or, indeed, any hospital—to afford from its grants from the Ministry of Health to install both these kinds of computers, because although the smaller kind to which I have referred will not be a very expensive item—something in the neighbourhood of, I think, £50,000—the bigger ones, for the larger scientific work, can be very expensive indeed. In fact, I am not prepared to give an opinion of what it might cost in the long run.
Then, if you are going to get these two types of computers working from one institution, it has to be possible, I think, for the work done by the local computer to be compatible with that done by the bigger computer. Here I see something in the Flowers Report which I am afraid I do not understand. It uses phrases like "hardware" and "software". I have a vague idea what they mean, but I should like to make a protest or a plea, if I may, here. We have this enormous new industry growing up, which is going to be, as has been said, most important in all sorts of walks of life. Would it be possible for it not to assume a new jargon which is at present, to someone like myself, incomprehensible unless one learns a whole lot of new words? I am sure it is not too difficult to do that in a far simpler way.
Then there is a final way, where in medicine I think a computer, on a much smaller scale, can be of considerable value, and that is in assessing work coming from a clinical laboratory. There a great deal of saving of time could be effected and the work could be done in a much more accurate kind of way. I am told that a computer, or a machine approaching a computer which could be

731
used in that work would not be the expensive one I have already mentioned and would not cost much more than about £30,000.
My Lords, one of the things which I am rather sorry that the Report of the Flowers Committee did not touch on is some kind of encouragement to one or two teaching hospitals to branch out in some pioneer work; instead of which they rather fought shy of that issue. I hope it will be possible for those places which are suitable, or are willing to do that, to be supplied with computers so they can get going with some pioneer work fairly quickly, because I am sure there is a great deal to be done. If your Lordships will read what is said in paragraph 143 of the Flowers Report, I think you will find it very interesting indeed. They say:
"The enormous potential of computers in the medical and biological fields is only beginning to be appreciated. It may well be that in terms of volume of data processing this work may outstrip the physical sciences very rapidly in the coming decade ".
I believe that would be the opinion of many people who have worked on computers in the biological fields, so I think it does provide a very strong call to the Government, or the Government Department involved, to give a lead in that direction.
Finally, my Lords, before I sit down I should like to add my support to that which has been expressed in regard to paragraph 289 of the Flowers Committee Report. That is the paragraph which says:
"It is important that (like the U.S. Government) the British Government should take a strong positive initiative in furthering all imaginative and realistic applications of computing …".
I am sure that is an important thing to do. It has been very much emphasised by noble Lords who have already spoken, and I should like to add what few words I can say in support of it, too.
4.56 p.m.
LORD PIERCY: My Lords, I feel that should begin by apologising to the noble Lord, Lord Byers, who I see is not here at the moment, for not having been present when he began his observations this afternoon. But I was here when he dealt with the subject on which I want
732
to speak—the London University Atlas computer. But, first, perhaps I might be allowed to associate myself with other noble Lords in welcoming this Report as an extremely valuable study and appraisal of the position. Its recommendations are sound, sensible and, in its merit, economical. One hopes very much that the Government will take a generous view of this subject, and will not cut down or spread out over a longer period the recommendations of the Committee.
I should also like to say how deeply I was impressed by the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Bowden, and how fully I associate myself with his hope that the design and manufacture of very large computers in this country will be continued. I agree with him that that is a part of this field which should be specially encouraged by the Government, because it is very expensive. It very likely gets in the way of so readily manufacturing smaller computers which are in a state of efficient design. I do not want to say too much on that, but I thought that was a most valuable point in the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Bowden.
The particular subject on which I wanted to speak was the situation of the Atlas computer, which belongs to the University of London, and I ought to say at once that I am a member of the Court of that University and the Chairman of the company which is the instrument that the University has devised for managing the affairs of this computer. I agree with the remark which fell from, I think, the noble Lord, Lord Bowden, that there has been a certain amount of misunderstanding about the merits and position of Atlas, and it may be that some rather inapposite remarks in the Fifth Report of the Estimates Committee have had something to do with it. In that Report, it refers to this undertaking by the University of London as "an unfortunate venture". I daresay that, if the word "unfortunate" could be deleted, that might describe it. It also says that the University has incurred a debt of a million pounds which they are not able to defray by commercial means. That statement is simply wrong; and, for that reason, perhaps, especially after what has been said about Atlas during our discussion, I need say no more.
All the same, I feel it should be interesting to your Lordships to know a little

733
more about the origin and progress of this particular venture. The Court of the University of London has always been much concerned with the supply of computer service and the co-ordination of the existing resources available in the University. In 1961, in pursuit of this policy, it prevailed upon the University Grants Committee to make a grant for a new and bigger computer, and the U.G.C., I am sure, stretched a point in allocating £500,000 to the University for the purchase of a KDF9. The University Grants Committee stretched a further point in allowing us to apply this £500,000 towards the purchase of a larger computer. At that time what I think was a both bold and imaginative idea was born—and I believe that certain distinguished physicists, along with the Administration of the University, were concerned in this. It was to endeavour to obtain for the University the services of the biggest and best computer there was at that time. That was the Atlas, costing £1,800,000.
To make that possible they had to get some support from somewhere. It would not perhaps be fitting for a University to have a commercial partner in the ownership of a computer; but to have a customer is another thing. They found, among several possibles, a customer, the British Petroleum Company, which was ready to advance £625,000 in consideration of having a call on one-quarter of the available time of the computer. What that arrangement means is that there is this payment of £625,000 which can be spread over the life of the computer to provide the depreciation of the cost of the machine. The total cost of the machine at the present time, including the building, is roughly £2,125,000.
The B.P. payment is about one-quarter of the total amount. When dealing with university accounts, naturally, you do not have anything to do with depreciation; but as soon as you get on to a commercial basis you must provide for the depreciation of capital assets which will be liable to wear out or to become obsolete. In the case of the Atlas the effective life of the machine is 6.½ years. So it is necessary to amortise £2,125,000 over the short period of 6¼ years. The result is that more than one-half of the price of computer time
734
(costed correctly) represents the depreciation which must be provided to amortise the machine. In the case of the British Petroleum contract, that was provided in advance.
The University Grants Committee's £500,000 was eventually augmented by a total of £117,000 for the buildings and the like. So there, again, was a total of £617,000 towards the amortisation of this large sum. The University, in like manner with B.P., would get time at the running cost, consisting of the operational costs and maintenance. There remained one-half of the available time to be sold commercially, which in the course of normal pricing would yield the remainder of the depreciation. Our belief was, and our experience is, that there is no difficulty in selling that other one-half of the time. But the subtlety of this scheme was that, whereas B.P. came in at the start and provided one-quarter of the capital amount required, one-half of the available time was still not pledged anywhere. This was the element of flexibility in the scheme. It has turned out fortunate, for since the machine was ordered at the beginning of 1962, the demand for its services has been banking up steadily all the time. This computer, like every large computer of a new design—even the new ones that are spoken about as coming from America—will have a great many teething troubles. In the case of the Atlas they were rather protracted; and it was fully commissioned only on January 1, 1965. During the year 1965, the B.P. contract has been running very smoothly indeed and everyone is satisfied. The University pressure for time was very great.
Between the time when the computer was ordered and the time when it was commissioned two new elements had been thrown into the London University situation: the Imperial College was given a 7090 computer, the capacity of which is about one-quarter of that of the Atlas, and the Chilton Atlas provided a lot of time. Nevertheless, the demand falling upon the University was very great indeed, and the University has in fact provided the time. The University pointed out to the University Grants Committee in December, 1963, that the demand was increasing greatly. At that time there was no commitment for the unsold half,

735
and it was suggested that the remedy was for the University Grants Committee to provide some more capital money and take a further fraction of the total output.
That negotiation lingered. We were asked for information in 1964. Then the Flowers Group was appointed, and during this period the University was very loth to tie up—as it might well have tied up in commercial transactions—the remaining one-half of the computer time. The net result is that, out of 6½ years, it has lost one year when it might have been earning depreciation, and it must take up the commercial side single-mindedly if no further propositon comes forward.
The propositions put forward at one time were that the University should take another one-quarter of the time, and put up another £600,000. Later it was suggested that the Government could put up £1,100,000, or thereabouts, and that the University should take up the whole of the remainder of the time, which no doubt in a very short period it could do. On the other hand, the position is acute despite all the auxiliary help. The University and its associated institutions, including one or two outside its periphery, have during the last year been depending upon 1,281 hours of time, which the University has paid for at a price which does not include depreciation. That payment has been found by the University from its block grant and not from any grant earmarked for the purpose.
Under the Flowers Committee recommendations two new machines are proposed, one for University College and one for Imperial College, but it must be extremely doubtful whether these machines, models neither of which has yet seen the light, will be operating effectively before the end of 1968. Meanwhile, we have this demand, and on present form it would appear that instead of the University being able to help the situation by giving 65 per cent.; or some such percentage, of the time, it can give only 25 per cent. of the time. That is to say, as commercial work grows it will fix the University quota at 25 per cent. It is not, of course, the wish of the University to see this happen. On the other hand, the plan is based on raising half of the depreciation by selling time
736
commercially. That can be done, and although there seems to be a conflict the University should do it. My Lords, I have stated this perhaps at greater length than I needed to do, because I think it useful that it should be on the Record. I have heard privately that conversations will be taking place relating to this matter which may lead to some sort of solution.
I am prompted to say two other things. First, what about a replacement for the Atlas computer? There should be a replacement in 1971. It is a peculiar feature of this admirable Report that, although it uses Atlas units as a sort of standard for measuring the various facilities available, the London Atlas hardly figures in the pages of the Report at all. It seems to appear for a moment and then to fade away, rather like the Cheshire cat. Obviously a replacement for the Atlas is an important subject. We have built up an important and a very efficient organisation. The University is depending on this supply and may depend on it a great deal more before a new supply comes along. If there is to be a replacement, plans should be made now, so I think that that may be one of the subjects to be discussed. I hope that it will be.
My Lords, I wish also to mention briefly a point which has already been referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Byers, the question of a regional centre. I need to touch on it delicately, although I seem to remember the example of Agag's treading delicately and I cannot recollect that it did him very much good. I should like to refer to the matter in terms similar to those of the noble Lord, Lord Byers. It seems to me that, irrespective of where the machines were located, the Regional Centre should have been the University of London Computer Centre. That would have been the natural candidate for a regional centre. Its business apart from its commercial sales has all been planned on distributing a given quantity of time among a number of candidates, all hungry, all meritorious, perhaps all more meritorious than others. It is a technique which has to be learned, and we are learning fast. It is building up a practice with the most abstruse calculations, and it has this established technique and competence. I do not wish to flog the question, but simply to express the hope that it will

737
still receive the consideration of the Ministry.
One of the elements in the distaste of the noble Lord, Lord Byers, for the commercial side of Atlas is a feeling that it is derogatory to the University that it should go about hawking time. Some people are more sensitive than others in this respect. I can see the point of the noble Lord's distaste, but I do not share his feeling. Whether or not it is derogatory depends on what you have to hawk and on your customers. Our list of customers already who have taken the odd 10 per cent. is a grand and a high-class list. I think it more valuable to say that we would much rather see the University using the time than selling it.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, may I, for the Record, correct the noble Lord, Lord Piercy? I did not mean to give the impression that it was derogatory or that there was something "lower-class" about this activity. I wanted to say, and I did say, that it was the wrong principle that a University which could use the time for academic purposes should have to sell time in order to pay for the machine. I am not saying that this is derogatory, but that it is a wrong principle.
LORD PIERCY: My Lords, with that I most cordially agree. The Government should find the money, and I hope that they will. Were I in a position to regulate this matter, I should say that the best remedy for the shortage which exists in the London area, and which will become very acute in the next two years, would be for the Government to buy the rest of the time by giving an appropriate capital grant. Along with which should go a grant earmarked for the payment of running costs, which so far we have not got. I hope that I have not detained the House too long, but I thought that a good deal of what I have said should be on the Record.
5.19 p.m.
LORD ROYLE: My Lords, when I saw the list of noble Lords who were to speak this afternoon I felt inhibited from participating in the debate. Having listened to the debate, I wonder now how on earth I had the nerve to put down my name at all. I have no technical knowledge of the computer industry, but because of certain circumstances I have quite recently been called on to take a.
738
modest interest in the organisation and production of computers. I happen to be associated, with an organisation which just at this moment has decided to install a computer for its work. We hesitated for two or three years, because we were not satisfied that the British computer industry had reached anything like the American levels and, as a patriotic organisation, we felt that we could not spend valuable currency when eventually we might be able to use our money for the purchase of a British machine. Accordingly, I started to make some inquiries about the British computer industry.
Following my modest research, I feel that I should say that I am completely satisfied that the British computer, for all practical purposes—I do not want to put it any higher than this—has in the last few months been catching up with anything to be purchased abroad in efficiency and competitive value. It is not just a matter of installing the latest equipment. We must be satisfied that it can be a valuable contribution in the progress of industry and of our economy as a whole. After much thought I am convinced that this is so.
It is five years since the present Prime Minister said:
" The answer to rising prices at home and a weak pound abroad is to increase production with a heavy concentration of the types of investment that can contribute most to our industrial base."
I know that many other people have said similar things, and that to-day they are truisms. I believe that computers are a great part of that type of investment—even the most important. No one can doubt that in the past seventeen months Her Majesty's Government have bent their energies to this end and have been supported by a large part of British industry. In passing, I would say that I believe that, in the main, the leaders of industry to-day believe in this Government, because it has given them encouragement and support in a way that was lacking previously.
The Ministry presided over by my right honourable friend Mr. Frank Cousins and by my noble friend Lord Snow, so much scorned and so much criticised, is now proving that the Government and industry can work together with great success. The noble Lord,

739
Lord Byers, and other speakers this afternoon, have stressed the importance of the computer in our national economy, and I would add, though it has already been said, that next week your Lordships' House will be discussing Defence problems for two days, within the scope of the great debate on Defence. I express the humble opinion that the instalment of computers is a hundredfold more important to the future of our country than the provision of another aircraft carrier and fifty F 111s. I was pleased this afternoon to hear my noble friend Lord Snow accept the Flowers Report in the terms he did. I feel that, as a result of what he said, the Report is going to be carried out pretty well to the full. I believe that our nation must go ahead in these things. Any fears or enthusiasms in the minds of our people are centred on standards of living. Those standards can be assured by the application of modern methods and not least by the wide use of computers.
Apart from the production of computers, I have tried to make inquiries into what are the greatest problems of the industry, and I have a long list of them—but they have been mentioned in detail, with much greater authority and power than I could possibly hope to attain, by noble Lords who preceded me. Therefore, I should like to concentrate on one great problem which has already been touched on by the noble Lord. Lord Byers, and by my noble friend Lord Snow; that is, the question of training personnel in the use of computers. It may be that after installation computers may not be used to the full extent because of inadequacy of management. There has to be a lot of education among top executives if full advantage is to be taken of computers installed. I am afraid there is a tendency among them to react against the senior people in the computer realm, because they just do not understand and have not tried to get down to the uses—the magnificent uses—to which computers can be put. When it comes to the people involved in the use of computers—processing managers, system analysts, programmers and operators—I am pleasantly surprised to learn that no science degrees are necessary.
LORD SNOW: Some.
LORD ROYLE: Yes, some. I accept what my noble friend said, bowing to his superior knowledge, although I know a man, who seems to me advanced in his knowledge of the computer industry and of operating computers, who has only a language degree. It seems that what are essential are a particular quality of mind and adaptability. I was surprised to find that top men with these aptitudes can be trained in about four months, plus, of course, the necessary experience. Coding can be learned by an intelligent clerk in a period of weeks. But where do these operators come from and where can they be trained? Speaking generally, at the moment only the computer industry and certain business consultants are attempting the task of training operators; and it is evident, in the light of probable growth—and I say this almost with bated breath in the presence of my noble friend Lord Bowden—that the universities and colleges of advanced technology have a bigger part to play than they are playing at the moment.
At present—I do not know whether my figures contradict or agree with those of my noble friend Lord Snow—I am told that something like 18,000 skilled direct users are engaged. Experts estimate that twice as many will be required in three years' time, and there could be a need of 100,000 by 1974. These are vast figures and it is vast growth. This proves, I feel, that adequate educational and training facilities must be available or we shall fall behind other great industrial nations. It is estimated (I am not going through them) that there are something like eighteen subjects in which training is needed. My noble friend Lord Bowden has this afternoon spoken with great authority, if he will allow me to say so, in the fascinating speech that he delivered to your Lordships. I feel relief that the burden of this training might in future rest on the shoulders of people like my noble friend; and it is encouraging that he recognises this.
It has been suggested to me that machines installed in the colleges of advanced technology are too scientific, and that there is a greater need for the commercial and industrial type of machine. I wonder whether my noble friend Lord Snow, together with my noble friend Lord Bowden, will think about this to see if a more suitable type of computer can be

741
placed in our universities and colleges of advanced technology than they have at the moment.
Then, again, youngsters coming out of school must be conditioned to this new approach of industry. It is a fact that in the United States of America they have second-hand computers in the secondary schools on which the children can learn. I wonder how far we are from that idea. We must get somewhere near to it if a new generation is to have a complete grip of the great changes that are taking place in industry. At the moment, in Britain, companies are offering very high salaries indeed for the very limited and crucial supply of systems analysts and computer programmers. The supply must be increased. There is competition for these people at the moment, and this is going to cost industry a great deal of money if more people are not trained.
This leads me to ask the Government what is being done in the following spheres. What is being done, for example, to co-ordinate the various committees concerned with standard codes at the moment? Different organisations have different codes. What about standard code development? This could produce tremendous economies at all stages. At the moment, I hear that the Netherlands are building up a gyro system. Are we not a long way behind in this kind of thing? I remember that during the war we all had our national numbers on our identity cards; and we had one for National Insurance purposes. But the identity card number was transferred to the Health Service, and this does not correspond with the National Insurance number. It seems to me that there is so much to be done in our country in the form of gyro undertaking and it has tremendous possibilities in the simplification of our life and our industry. Should we not be thinking on these lines, particularly in the computer set-up? I believe we must not restrict British "know-how"; that many more visits must be paid to America to look at what is going on there; and that we should buy sample machinery from America from time to time. I feel satisfied that the British computer industry is up to the production side. The strides they have been making recently are tremendous. Concentration, therefore, to a large
742
degree, must be on training of people who are to use the computers.
I should like to conclude by saying that the noble Lord, Lord Byers, has rendered a great service to the House this afternoon in raising this matter and bringing the Flowers Report more to the notice of the House than otherwise would have been the case. As a result of this debate my hope is that industry and commerce, educational establishments and all those people in the country who take notice of our debates, will gain interest in this great industrial and commercial break-through, and that, as a result, this land of ours will go forward still further in the development of what is an essential machine to the well-being of our country.
5.36 p.m.
LORD WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, I must apologise for having been absent for a great part of this debate and thereby, unfortunately, missing many of the interesting contributions. The noble Lord, Lord Byers, has certainly put us in his debt in having introduced this discussion on the Flowers Report. It is perfectly obvious, from the attention that has been paid throughout the debate, that this is an extremely important and interesting subject. I was delighted to notice that the noble Lord, Lord Byers, has evidently realised that there is considerable value in planning and that the application of the computer may well be an important step towards Socialism. I thought he gave a clear exposition of the way in which the computer can, in the economic field, lead us far in the direction which noble Lords on this side of the House would wish the economy to move. I am looking forward to his following a noble friend of his in coming over to this side of the House.
The subject of computers is one which concerns us all, because, as has been indicated, it concerns the economy, and also because it is quite essential for the development of science and industry. The noble Lord, Lord Byers, asked whether there were many other fields, as he was sure there were, in science where the computer had been of use. It is interesting to know that in my own university, where the computer, a KDF 9, has been installed now for about eighteen months, it has been used, strangely enough, more by my

743
own department, the chemistry department, than by any other department in the university. This is because one is able by means of the computer to tackle all those chemical problems which have always been the basis of chemistry but which previously it has been impossible to solve in the lifetime of a single individual. We can now do, with a computer, what was previously impossible. Although previously we could conceive of its being done, we had no method of doing it.
The implementation of the Flowers Report is something which is necessarily of great importance to us. But I think it is also important to remember, as has been indicated several times during this debate, that the implementation of the Flowers Report in purchasing the computers is not by itself enough. It requires also, a large expenditure upon the maintenance of computers and upon the supply of staff.
Reference has been made to the necessity for training. I should like to point out that, although it may appear that not a great deal of training is going on, in almost every university and college of technology where a computer is installed, and where there is a computing laboratory, courses are now being run for training people in computer science. In my own university, we have just started an honours course in computer science, as well as certain certificate courses which are at a lower level. But the problem with which one is faced is this. The financing of universities is done, for no doubt very good reasons, on a quinquennial basis. We are approaching the final year of the quinquennium and, consequently, no additional funds are available for employing fresh staff in order to run these courses. This, I believe, is a serious matter. It certainly is in my own university, and I believe it is a serious matter in other universities as well.
The noble Lord, Lord Byers, suggested that special money ought to be made available for expansion of computer services, and I support this suggestion very strongly. If the development of computers has to be made in competition with other developments inevitably we shall not get the advance which is required. In other words, I believe it can
744
be done rapidly only by making earmarked grants for this purpose. This is not only for the purchase of computers, but also in order to maintain them, for the staff and to run the courses of training which are so vital. The noble Lord referred to the Atlas computer, and the fact which I think most people would deplore, that it is essential to let time on it in order to pay its way. But this is not only true of the Atlas computer; this has been true of all computers put into other universities as well, and much smaller computers. For instance, in my own university again, when the KBF 9 was installed we had to find a sum of money in connection with various equipment associated with it, which I think cost something like £60,000, and in consequence of this we have had to let time in order to pay for it.
This sort of thing is going on all the time. I suggest that it is an important matter that the country should appreciate that, if it wants to get a rapid development of computers and of computer science in the country, it must do rather more than the excellent start it has made in supplying the money for the computers, and also see that the money is available for the auxiliary equipment and for the staff in order to run these computers. If we are prepared to do this, and we are able to develop computers properly, the future is very rosy, and one can only hope that what my noble friend Lord Snow has indicated is true, that our computer industry will be prepared to seize the opportunity, because that is the crucial matter in our own development.
When one looks at the position at the present time, one is rather afraid that the development may still not be rapid enough in our computer industry. It is an excellent thing that it should be prepared to make the computers, and it ought to make them. But if it makes computers of the right quality two years later than the corresponding American model, then it is two years too late. It is quite essential that the industry should realise that months make a difference in such a rapidly developing field as the computer field.
My Lords, this is a challenge to us as a country. It is a challenge to us intellectually, administratively and industrially, and it is a challenge to us in

745
Parliament. It is absolutely essential that the development of computers goes forward, and goes forward rapidly. I can only hope that we seize this opportunity.
5.45 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I think the noble Lord, Lord Byers, can be well satisfied with the debate that he has triggered off. I cannot think of a subject which your Lordships' House is better fitted to debate, judging by, I would say, the brilliance and informed nature of the speeches we have had. I am not sure how far the noble Lord, Lord Byers, is a computer expert and cyberneticist, but he may be in the same position as myself and even the noble Lord, Lord Amulree. I too could have done with a glossary or a vocabulary at the end of the Flowers Report. It is apparent that this is a subject about which we all must know something, and about which it is possible to learn something by talking, or reading the New Scientist, by listening to the B.B.C., and ultimately trying to find out by binary arithmetic, which is something which when I stopped mathematics at the age of fourteen, I had never heard of.
There are obvious hazards in store for everybody, including the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack. I do not think he heard the speech of my noble friend Lord Bowden. when he referred to the science of juri-metrics. I was aware that Mr. Charles Hitch, who has been the head of systems analysis (as they call it in the Defence Department), had succeeded in persuading the United States Government to get the systems analysts into the Department of Justice. I can see that certainly in the field of retrieval, on which I shall have something to say, there clearly would be great advantages indeed. This shows the need for the widest possible understanding, as my noble friend Lord Royle so strongly emphasised. I feel that I almost need a computer to sort out and arrange the points with which I shall try to deal, but there are certain things I should like to say, perhaps giving a little more information to the House, and then I will try to deal with those particular points that have been made which are within my competence to answer.
I should like, first, to say a little more on the subject of the implementation of
746
the Flowers Report. Obviously, its implementation will give rise to certain frictions here and there, in regard to both the method of purchase and the machines to be purchased. But I think most of your Lordships will agree that Her Majesty's Stationery Office, who have considerable experience in buying computers, are the right people to co-ordinate and place bulk orders. It is satisfactory to talk about placing bulk orders for computers. The acceptance trials will he carried out by the Technical Support Unit of the Ministry of Technology, to which my noble friend lends such distinction.
May I say at this point how particularly fascinating I found the speech of my noble friend Lord Snow. I think not the least of the claims to fame of the present Government is that they have brought both into this House and into the Government people like Lord Snow, such as my noble friend Lord Bowden and, indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones. They have made a great contribution to this debate. As I was saying, it will be the Technical Support Unit of the Ministry of Technology who will be able to advise, from very wide experience, on the installation problems.
The most urgent part of the Flowers programme is the upgrading of the KDF9 machines already installed in seven universities; and here I should like to correct a point of misunderstanding. I do not quite know how it has arisen, but it shows the degree of ignorance there is in this field—certainly not among your Lordships, but in the Press outside. It has been said that this in some way implies that the machines were unsatisfactory. Of course this is an absurdity. The essence of the proposition is that they are enlarging the capacity, and they are doing so by suitable additions in a compatible form. The additional equipment is being ordered and it will greatly enhance the computing power. Something like £1 million is likely to be spent on this part of the programme in the year 1966–67, with further expenditure in the following year. The orders for the hardware have already been placed with English Electric.
Reference has been made to software and to peripherals. I will certainly not attempt to explain those now, but I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, that providing the derivation of a

747
new word is impeccable one can usually sense its meaning, and I think that these words almost immediately convey a meaning. That is why, provided that there is no mixture of Latin and Greek, which is so objectionable in the word "geostationary", for instance, in relation to satellites, I think we can grasp pretty well what these words mean. To co-ordinate user opinion in this matter of software, and to plan the use and development of the seven university machines to the standard of that of the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority, a Working Party has been set up under the chairmanship of Dr. Morton, of the Culham Laboratory. I should make it clear that this is not the Dr. Morton who used the computer so interestingly to prove that St. Paul did not write all the Epistles. The first meeting of this Working Party is to be held on Friday of this week, and it is expected that the Working Party's deliberations will lead to the fullest exploitation of the KDF9.
The interim advisory panel is considering machines for fifteen other universities —these are ones which are to receive new machines in the first wave of the Flowers Plan; and at its first meeting, which is early next week, it is hoped that agreement will be reached on placing orders for about a dozen machines. It is likely that at least another £1 million will be spent in the year 1966/67 in this group of universities.
I hope that this will answer the noble Lord, Lord Byers. I do not complain about his question as to why we were taking six years, instead of five. It was a fair question; indeed, I asked it myself. But I think there is no doubt that the Government are showing a sense of great urgency in this matter, and the feeling in the Government is at least as strong as among those who have been pressing the Government. I shall not say much this evening about the record of the previous Administration. This is a matter which no doubt we shall find further opportunities to discuss outside the Chamber.
To put the fifteen universities in the picture, and to give them an opportunity of airing their problems, a meeting of the University Grants Committee was
748
held recently. A whole day's discussion took place on the arrangements and help and machines to be offered by the Technical Support Unit—the development of software, co-ordination between universities, and so on; and there was an agreement that universities with similar machines should associate closely with one another as soon as orders were placed for the machines. As soon as the orders are placed, the University Grants Committee will circulate this information to all universities, and it is expected that Working Parties will be set up on the lines of that for the KDF9.
In this matter the responsibilities of the University Grants Committee are those of a co-ordinating body, whether in theory we want to put this sort of thing in or not, but it is clearly essential that somebody should provide this co-ordination. In general the Flowers recommendations and their broad acceptance—and it is a pretty firm acceptance of them—by the Government have given great satisfaction to the universities. Naturally, everybody would like to have equipment installed at the earliest possible moment, but here again there has to be an order of priority and the U.G.C. looks to the interim panel for advice.
Of course there are many other factors, as anyone who has been concerned with the introduction of computers is aware, which can affect their introduction. There is the necessity to provide adequate buildings, with suitable air conditioning and temperature. There have been one or two disasters when people have not quite got things right for their computers. Indeed, there have been a number of delays in the introduction of computers. Frequently difficulties have arisen in the software, and sometimes the simple ventilation of the building has led to unfortunate effects on magnetic tape and decomposition of chemicals, and so on, which I will not go into this evening.
It is true that misgivings have been expressed by some universities about the extra expenditure on buildings, and I think the noble Lord, Lord Byers, felt some concern in regard to this. Obviously provision has to be made, and the University Grants Committee is keeping it under review. But the housing of computers has in some ways become a simpler problem, and it will be possible to

749
meet the necessary standards without necessarily building the most perfect and ideal buildings. Some improvisation will be acceptable, but clearly, within the resources which are available a high priority has to be given to this matter; and of course there have been discussions on the particular machines.
Certainly it is no part of the policy of Her Majesty's Government or of the U.G.C. to force computers down the reluctant throats (if I may use that expression) of universities if they want a particular one. None the less, there are great national advantages to be gained if we can agree to avoid some of the mistakes that have been made. I am very conscious of the mistakes that have been made in the aircraft programme by trying to get the most perfectly tailored and perfectionist equipment. But there are good reasons why the Flowers Committee did make their recommendations. They are often based on the need for compatibility between different machines located in the same region, and here again the interim panel is looking at this.
There has been considerable discussion on the Atlas computer at London University, and I think perhaps it is a little unfortunate (although I am not in any way intending to reflect on him) that the noble Lord, Lord Byers, was out of the Chamber when my noble friend Lord Piercy was giving such a full and detailed discussion of the problem. Indeed, other noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, also pointed out that this is not isolated, although it is an acute case and has loomed very largely. I am afraid that I must tell the noble Lord, Lord Byers, that I am not going to say very much on it to-day, for two reasons. One is that it is a complicated problem, and I do not want to take up much of the time of the House on it. Secondly, discussions are going on. The case for further Exchequer support is being considered; it is being considered separately, outside the Flowers proposals, and I cannot anticipate what the outcome will be, but clearly a solution will have to be found.
The noble Lord, Lord Bowden, who gave us such a fascinating account of the so many wide aspects of computers, attached particular importance to the development of large computers in this country. I hope he will talk to his friend
750
Professor Black on this subject. This is clearly a matter on which there is controversy. I think there is no dispute between us that, whatever happens, we need very large computers as soon as possible, whether we make them in this country or have to buy them from the United States. I noted what the noble Lord said about the hiring of computers. There is, of course, not the same incentive for a university to buy rather than hire them as there would be in the case of a firm where there are the particular advantages of investment allowances. But, none the less, the points that Lord Bowden has put so forcefully are recognised.
In relation to the developments of the Anglo-French computer and co-operation with European industry, we must recognise in this matter that we may be co-operating with American-owned industry, even though the machines are made in Europe. It is the fact that I.B.M. are a very great company; let us not feel any hostility; anybody in industry who has had to use I.B.M. machines will realise just how outstanding a company it is. None the less, this co-operation is not going to be too easy. We hope to find partners. The Minister of Technology has already visited Paris to discuss with his French opposite number possibilities for Anglo-French technological co-operation, and we hope that this co-operation will go forward, but it will be more likely to prosper if it goes forward on defined projects.
There were a number of other points to which the noble Lord, Lord Bowden, referred, and I can only say, in relation to his particularly forceful remarks on the need not to miss the boat again—and I agree strongly how much we have been in danger and how much we have missed the boat already—that we must not make this sort of mistake in the future. We were all interested that the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, was able, from his own experience and medical knowledge, to draw attention to the use of computers in the hospital service. Quite apart from the orders for computers for the Regional Hospital Boards which have been recently announced, discussions are being held with the teaching hospitals about carrying out schemes to cover hospital management as well as general administrative work. Perhaps some of that vast

751
quantity of paper that resides in the almoners' offices and elsewhere can be reduced; I am sure we should all wish to encourage this. Here, again, Professor Flower's Report stresses the importance of compatability between teaching hospitals and universities, and the advisory service of the Ministry of Technology is engaged in discussions to promote this.
The noble Earl, Lord Dundee, in a short but interesting and helpful speech, raised a point on investment incentives for computers. I must honestly say that I think he has got the argument wrong on this. We do not propose to give the regional grants of 40 per cent. for automatic data processing computers in development areas, because this could result in large sums of money being spent with no relevance to the problems of those areas. It is not as if computers by their nature are large consumers of labour or likely to be of particular value in developing industry and providing employment in those areas. They may well provide employment—I was going to say in the noble Lord's constituency, but I realise Dundee is not his constituency. It may provide employment there and in other areas that manufacture computers. In fact, the use of these computers might have an effect on creating employment elsewhere outside the development areas, and the Government's intention is that the investment grants should have a direct and tangible effect on the level of employment in the development areas. I am grateful to the noble Earl for giving me advance notice of a question that I should otherwise not have been able to answer. I hope I have at least given him the thinking behind this. He asked whether investment allowances applied to peripherals. I am afraid I cannot answer that question.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, the noble Lord will appreciate that they do now apply to peripherals; they apply to all capital investment. What I want to know is whether, under the new plans to displace the present system, they will or will not apply to these input machines.
LORD SHACKLETON: It depends on the particular peripheral, and at this point I hastily duck out of the debate, because I had a hasty conversation a few
752
moments ago and it is not quite as clear as it appears to the noble Earl. I will go a little further into this question and let him have specific answers on this point.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: The noble Lord agrees that all these machines, both computers and peripherals, whatever the justification may be, are going to get much less investment incentive than they are receiving now.
LORD SHACKLETON: The point is that not all peripherals are machines and may not rank for investment allowances. But I am getting into deep water. I take the noble Earl's point. The reasons I have given for not giving the regional grants would equally apply to that peripheral equipment which does qualify.
The noble Lord, Lord Byers, referred to computers in technical colleges and schools. This is a matter primarily for local education authorities, but the Secretary of State for Education and Science will certainly be encouraging provision in appropriate technical colleges, and clearly computers one way and another will have to come much more widely into the lives of schools. I do not know how far one will be able to control the use of computers during school examinations; I can see particularly difficult problems arising, especially if you have managed to feed a bit of extra knowledge into the memory of the computer as a specialised form of crib. But I am sure the noble Lord does not expect me to go much further into this. I think it might be possible for schools to make some use of technical college computers, and plans for mobile computers on the lines which were suggested by the noble Lord are in fact being studied.
The noble Lord, Lord Byers, and other noble Lords, and I think my noble friend Lord Royle, also referred to what might be called the associated activities. I am not quite sure whether they are peripherals, and I am not sure I fully understood what the noble Lord, Lord Royle, was referring to. On codes, I take it he was not referring to computer language, Algol or Fortran, but rather adaptation by the community to get the best use out of these new techniques.
LORD ROYLE: In fact, both, my Lords.
LORD SHACKLETON: Of course, the learning of Algol is perhaps something for a mathematician—or if not the learning of it, at least the devising of these languages. But he raised rather an interesting point, which I personally had not considered, although I do not doubt that my noble friends Lord Snow and Lord Bowden had it in mind—namely, that as we automate, changes have to be introduced. We have seen attempts made in regard to the Post Office in this matter. Certainly it will be no use having these high-powered machines, and then tapes or information transferred over the mountains between one computer and another by pony express. Therefore, one of the most important features of the Flowers programme is that it should provide an integrated system in which computer will talk unto computer and they will receive each other's output for further processing. This is not only a convenience; it will ensure the most economical use of available funds, and it would be folly to have these and fail to provide the essential data links.
Again, the Minister of Technology is in touch with the Postmaster General especially about the possibility of a national data processing service. Most of the institutions will need the use of large machines at some time or another, because obviously we cannot provide each with a large machine for occasional use; and noble Lords are aware of the three main regional centres. There will also, of course, be a substantial increase in computer facilities for individual universities and research establishments.
We have not said much about Research Councils and research establishments today, but clearly they have to be part of this integrated system. As I say, there are proposals for linking computers in the teaching hospitals. These computers may again need to be linked with some of the university computers. In the local authority field there have already been signs that authorities are beginning considering linking their computers; and these links may develop into networks covering all aspects of local life, including technical colleges and regional offices of Ministries and so on. I think the same thing will probably happen in industry. Work done at the National Computing Centre recently established by my right honourable friend the Minister of Tech-
754
nology will play an important part here in the preparation of common programmes.
My right honourable friend is also considering further research into multi-access computing which the establishment of such networks will require; and also the implications for computer aided design. As he said in another place, the possibilities of establishing this national data processing service are being studied, though much needs to be learned about the ideas of a central data processing system and in the field of multi-access working. Of course, there are a number of desirable qualities, whether multi-access or otherwise, in computers, including depending on the use of random access. There arc a number of interesting, almost philosophic, points which have been made this afternoon—
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, before the noble Lord gets into philosophy, is he not going to say—
LORD SHACKLETON: I am returning from philosophy.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I was going to ask whether, as I hope, he is going to say something about the design standards to be adopted for a new range of British computers in the early 1970s, which was the subject of inquiry by the Maddock Working Group which reported to the Minister before Christmas.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I am afraid I was not going to. The noble Earl puts me in something of a difficulty because the Maddock Report has not been published. It is part of a series of internal inquiries, and the committee is a committee of officials. Quite frankly, I am in no position to give any sort of Government statement on it today. I certainly noted the noble Earl's point. It was raised, I admit. But I hope he will not press me on it to-day. I will discuss the matter further and, if we can give some more information, either in the House or to him, we will do so.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: It is important in connection with the American question which Lord Byers raised.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I do not know whether the noble Earl has succeeded in getting a copy of this Report himself.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I should not have asked about it if I had.
LORD SHACKLETON: There it is slightly difficult because it does not bear exactly on the point that I think he has in mind. I think we might leave this one at this stage because, clearly, I cannot go into every detail on computers, otherwise we shall be here for a long time. I might perhaps have been safer with philosophy rather than with practical questions of this kind.
I think I have referred to most of the points that I have noted. There was, however, one interesting discussion on information retrieval; and we have not had much discussion on the use of computers for administration. Perhaps my noble friend Lord Royle will forgive me if I say that, whereas I agree with him in relation to carriers, I did not agree with him on the F 111. But in this matter, the Services themselves are in fact well ahead and have pioneered a great deal in the use of computers. This is as it should be. Quite a high proportion of the large computers are in the Defence Department.
LORD ROYLE: That was not quite my point.
LORD SHACKLETON: No, I know it was not. Let me say that there would have been quite extensive computers in carriers. But let me say also in this connection that, having had these computers, we do know something of the troubles.
The noble Lords, Lord Bowden and Lord Snow, and others, will be aware that London University problems are not isolated. Practically everyone who has had anything to do with computers has run into trouble—some into real trouble, through failing to get the right softwear, and failing to train people. And, of course, the psychological problems are great. In my experience in the firm in which I was a director until recently, when we first started putting our stock controls through a computer—this was a group of retail stores—it was the general view of the selling department managers that the stock was all micromilitarised and disappeared inside the computer. Clearly, there are real psychological problems. That is why I think the point of several noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Royle, and others, on persuading
756
people to understand these problems and to get familiar with them, is quite fundamental.
This is a matter of attitude of mind. Indeed, when it comes to jurimetricising the lawyers we may have a difficult psychological problem. I do not know whether my noble friend Lord Bowden's remarks about the unwillingness of universities to study themselves apply to all of industry. Incidentally, in that connection Malenovsky's study of the sexual life of savages and the work on the Trobrian Islanders was not done from the Manchester College of Science and Technology. Indeed, some of my friends who have continued this work subsequently, carried out similar investigations in Bolton, and I believe in some universities; and of course Mr. Kinsey did a great deal of his work in universities. But I must not he led away too far, beyond saying that in this field there is clearly great scope for the use of computers.
The point made by the noble Lord, Lord Byers, about the importance in Government of getting more information early is quite fundamental to the National Plan. As to the application of these techniques—whether it be in regard to Professor Stone's work in the Department of Applied Economics at Cambridge (and I do not see why he should not have been financed in such a piece of research by the Ford Foundation)—the time has now come when a large part of British national investment has to go into this new cybernetics world. Let me remind your Lordships that the first time the word "cybernetics" was raised in Parliament was in your Lordships' House in a debate which took place a few years ago—a debate to which the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, replied— on the subject of the National Reference Library of Science and Technology.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: The British Museum.
LORD SHACKLETON: Yes, we were dealing with the British Museum. In time to come information retrieval will be one of the main uses of computers. Here associations like A.S.L.I.B. and others have been playing an important part. I am sorry that I have gone on as long as I have. I hope the Government have given enough information

757
to show how seriously they regard the urgent matter of the introduction of computers into our national life, and, above all, into those vital points of growth—the universities.
6.22 p.m.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, I will not detain the House for very long, but I should like sincerely to thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate for the high standard of their contributions. We may be able to claim that we have underlined in our debate to-day the tremendous importance which we all attach to the use of computers in getting modernisation in its widest sense. I hope, too, that we may have added something to the educational work which has to go on every day about the use of computers themselves.
There has throughout our discussions on this matter been a welcome absence of partisan notes, though I must assure the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, that it was never my intention to suggest the use of computers for the advancement of Socialism. I believe the computer to be a tool of the present and of the future, a tool of progress, and many of us regard Socialism as a sad philosophy of the past. While the noble Lord may be rejoicing at one new recruit who has joined his Party to-day. I would draw attention to the fact that in the past few months we have had about eight new recruits.
I should like to thank both Government speakers for their speeches and for their replies to points which have been raised. Naturally, I am a little puzzled and disappointed at the reply on Atlas. T hope it does not mean that the London Atlas is going to be further delayed, but that we shall be able to reach some solution in the near future. I must apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Piercy. I have been in attendance during the debate for all but ten minutes. It was my misfortune that that should have been the first ten minutes of his speech. Once again, I would thank the Government for their replies, and I now beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

TENANT FARMERS AND LAND DEVELOPMENT
6.25 p.m.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL THE EARL OF KINNOULL rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are aware of the financial hardship caused in some cases where tenant farmers are dispossessed due to their land being taken for development; and whether Her Majesty's Government would consider improving existing legislation on agricultural tenants' compensation. The noble Earl said: My Lords, before I begin, I feel I owe an apology to the House, and in particular to the noble Lord, Lord Champion, and my noble friend Lord Ferrers, for my absence last Monday when this Question was down on the Order Paper. The reason was that there was an early unexpected finish to proceedings on the Abortion Bill, and I was caught out of the House and arrived a few minutes too late.
In view of the certainty of the life of this Parliament, and the uncertainty of a similar Government returning to power, I should like to call upon the Opposition as well as the Government to give sympathy to this case. The subject I wish to raise to-night is a nightmare to any tenant farmer who lives under the threat of his land being taken for development. It is a night mare because he realises full well that both his livelihood and his home are endangered and that the likelihood of his getting another farm to rent is extremely small. He also knows full well that the present compensation for disturbance is so monstrously low that it gives no proper compensation for the sudden loss of his business.
Perhaps I may remind the House of the present legislation governing compensation to dispossessed farmers for disturbance. It is contained in Section 34 of the principal Act, the Agricultural Holdings Act 1948, and in Section 22 of a subsidiary Act, the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1963. Under Section 34 of the principal Act the compensation and principles of compensation were laid down and the maximum and minimum limits were set out. The minimum limit is laid down as one year's rental and the maximum limit as two years' rental. "The rental" is the rent which the tenant currently pays to

759
his landlord. No doubt in 1948 this basis of compensation must have seemed extremely fair and reasonable. But times have changed, and farming has become very large business in which a great deal of money is involved. Therefore, I suggest that the rigid limits which were laid down in Section 34 have become as outdated as talk of the horse and cart in present-day farming.
To give an example of the sort of injustice that can occur under Section 34, I should like to quote an experience which I had recently. I was called to make a report on an agricultural estate in North Wales, and on going through the farm rentals I found that they had not been increased for the past twenty years. There was a charitable reason, but in my opinion it was totally misguided. Consequently, no repairs or improvements were carried out to farm buildings. On this agricultural estate some of the best valley land in North Wales was being farmed by a tenant who was paying at that time only 12s. an acre. Under Section 34 the maximum compensation is 24s. an acre should the tenant be dispossessed—a sum equal to one sack of barley. This surely cannot be right. Certain relief could be claimed under Section 22 of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1963, and acquiring bodies of agricultural land were given the power to give discretionary payments above the two-year maximum rental limits in cases where they felt that the tenants honestly deserved them. This power has on many occasions caused difficulty. One of the main criticisms which have been levelled is that no such payments under that Section have ever been made to tenant farmers. Could the noble Lord confirm or deny this, and could he tell us the number of cases, if any, in which they have been paid?
The second, and perhaps more important, reason for criticising this Act, is the fact that the tenant is put into the impossible position of going cap in hand to acquiring bodies, without any legal right to demand payment, without any legal right to take the matter to arbitration or to a Lands Tribunal, and with a strong possibility that if, in his anxiety, he offends the acquiring body he will perhaps receive no payment whatsoever. So the position, as I see it, at the present time is that, on the one hand, there is the
760
major Act, the 1948 Act, which has become out of date, and, on the other, there is this slight relief which is virtually non-operative.
I am glad to say that I am not without support in this action. The National Farmers' Union have fought this case for three years now. The professional bodies—and I am a member of one—have studied this case for a year. Perhaps most interesting of all, is the fact that the right honourable Member for Workington, perhaps better known as the present Minister of Agriculture, felt so strongly about this case in September, 1964, a month before the last Election, that in a written statement to the Farmers' Weekly on this subject, he said:
" In principle. I accept that adequate compensation should be given to the farmer who suffers because of the take-over of his land for non-agricultural use. In previous legislation it was the practice to make ex gratia payments. This should be obligatory. On this matter further consultation should take place between the Government and the industry."
That was eighteen months ago, and I believe that there has been sufficient time for consultation between the Government and the industry, as do 75 tenant farmers in Buckinghamshire who at the present time are fighting a threat to their livelihoods and homes. In this case, 27,000 acres of land are being threatened for a New Town. It is probably not unknown to your Lordships that over 50,000 acres of land are swallowed up every year by development projects, so one can fairly say that this is not a simple, isolated case. This is something which is occurring year after year, and hardship is definitely being suffered.
On the question of an amendment to Section 34 of the Agricultural Holdings Act, I believe that two fundamental principles should be followed. First, profits should be geared to the rent in the matter of compensation. Secondly, some account should be taken of the age of the tenant and his expectancy of working life. Is it equitable that a brilliant young farmer who is making a great contribution to this industry should be penalised with exactly the same basis of compensation as a semi-retired farmer with one year to go?
I would make one final plea to the noble Lord, Lord Champion. At this time, just before the Election, I ask him to give an undertaking, not only for the Government but for his Party, to say definitely

761
that they will amend the present legislation. The situation at the present time is monstrous. Farmers who have no wish to give up their land are asking not for a golden handshake, but only for fair compensation for the loss of both their homes and their livelihoods.
6.35 p.m.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I think that my noble friend has done a great service in bringing this matter forward to-night. I would at the outset congratulate him, not only on bringing it forward, but also on his perseverance in so doing, because I believe that this is the fourth occasion on which his Unstarred Question has appeared on the Order Paper. On the first two occasions he was prevailed upon to remove it, because it looked as though it might come on at 10 o'clock at night. On the third occasion when it looked as though it was going to come on not at 10 o'clock but at 11 o'clock, by some quirk of procedure his Question came on at about 9.30 and the noble Earl unfortunately missed it by a minute.
However, I am very glad that he has persevered, because I think the point which he has brought forward is important. Nobody may claim that this is of national importance; but where this trouble cuts, it cuts hard. It cuts hard on people who are farming as tenants and who suddenly find that their land, which, after all, is the tool of their trade, is removed from them. I hope very much that the noble Lord, Lord Champion, will give very careful consideration to this question. After all, what is it that we are after on all sides? It is, presumably, only to be fair: what one wants to see is justice done to people who, for one reason or another, find themselves in a situation which is not of their making. Of course it is always difficult to be fair, and it is always difficult to assess fairness. Over any problem it is always so easy to make an exception and say, "Ah, but this is a different category." But I believe that farming is an exception, because by its very nature it is different from anything else. The farmer uses as the tools of his trade the very commodity which is now so very much in demand by everyone—that is, land. So it is important that we see that he is dealt with fairly.
762
I have a horrible feeling that the noble Lord, Lord Champion, may sweep this problem off the table and under the carpet; but because it is important, I hope that he will not do so. After all, the noble Lord can gain an advantage from the fact that there is to be an Election. He could perhaps give some encouragement to the tenant farmers by saying that if they were to be so misguided as to vote for the Labour Party, they might at least be able to have some form of compensation if their land is removed from them. I hope that he will be a little bold this evening and chance his arm a little, and try to give some encouragement to these people who find themselves in this unfortunate situation.
If a man owns a sweet-shop and finds that the premises are going to he removed for redevelopment, it is fairly easy to assess what he is going to lose. It is fairly easy to assess the inconvenience which he will suffer, and the money which he has tied up in the business. It is also fairly easy to assess what the new premises will cost, what it will cost to move, and what the new situation will be like. But that is not so with farmers, because the farmer's whole life is his work. Frequently, money is put by tenants, of their own volition, into highly costly schemes, such as drainage schemes which will give them only a long-term return. But they do it for the sake of prudence, because they believe that it will give a reasonable return. They frequently remove their hedges and ditches and replace them with tiled drains, at tremendous capital cost, in order to make their fields economic. Of course this is important for farming, but it is not important once the land is being used for development.
Everyone knows that the economic size of a farm gets bigger and bigger as the years go by, and the functioning of the unit depends upon its size. The removal of a large section of a farm can make an enormous economic difference to it—one far greater than the acreage might appear to be worth. I would instance the case of a 350-acre farmer. That farmer is farming a unit which is economically viable, useful and sensible in modern up-to-date conditions. But if 150 acres are suddenly removed from that farm, either to put a motorway through it or to build houses there, then it changes from a 350-acre farm into a 200-acre farm. The

763
farmer may have lost only 150 acres, but his unit has dropped from a viable one to one that is highly marginal. And it does not end there: he has to alter his whole system of farming in order to make this new and different unit as viable as it can be. Therefore, his whole system of management will have to alter immensely. This is a fact which makes the removal of land of far greater importance financially than the actual acreage might indicate.
If the compensation to a tenant is to be fair, the aim should be that the tenant, while no better off than he was before compensation, should, equally, be no worse off. But often he is, because he cannot resist the notice to quit if it is given to him for development purposes, and all he will get, of course, is his tenant right; payment for his growing crops and for the manurial residues that are left in the land; virtually nothing for the loss of his home or business; a little bit for disturbance—which means the cost of selling up and getting himself into another farm; and one year's rent, or, at the outside, two. As my noble friend pointed out, if he has been paying a very low rent this militates against him vigorously.
The noble Lord who is to reply may say that the tenant has been having the land cheap for the last twelve or, in this case, twenty years, and that that is one of the snags of having a low rent. But I do not think that that argument holds any water at all. To have one year's rent, or, at the most, two, is fairly scant treatment for a person who has to move out of his business and then, apparently, find another farm. Can anyone say how that is going to be done? If a man has been farming at a rent of 12s. an acre, he certainly will not find another farm at that rent. The number of farms that come on to the market as tenanted units is getting smaller and smaller, and one of the reasons why they are getting fewer and fewer in number is because units are getting larger and larger. It is therefore an impractical proposition to say that the farmer should remove from his farm and find another one; because the chances are that he will find it extremely difficult to do that.
There is the possibility of substantial injustice being done here, and I hope
764
that the noble Lord will give this matter some very serious consideration. I hope that he will realise that, as the years go by, more and more farmers are bound to suffer from this because more and more land will be required for development purposes. I hope that the noble Lord will let himself go a little and will give some encouragement to the farmers. After all, the noble Lord's Party is the one which has always championed the part of the tenant, and I hope that he will do so this evening. Even if he were a little more forthcoming than perhaps he should be he can take heart from the fact that he will be following his political masters in giving a bit of encouragement to the people who are about to enter an Election; and he can take further encouragement from the fact that, even if he does go a little too far, he need not worry too much, because I do not expect he will have to put his promises into action after March 31. Nevertheless, I hope that the noble Lord will give this some serious consideration, and will this evening be encouraging to tenant farmers, who are worried by this situation.
6.45 p.m.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD CHAMPION): My Lords, it is because I think I shall be standing here after the Election that I have not got to be too forthcoming about this Question that has been put to me to-night. After all, what I must do to-night is to give your Lordships the facts and to tell your Lordships what the Ministry and the Minister are doing about this problem, which I recognise as a problem. I am bound to say that, of course, I sympathise to a large extent with the noble Earl in the fact that he was not able to get here on Monday night for us to deal with his Question then. I understand; and, of course, his apology is quite unnecessary, except that he gives it to the House and not to me personally.
The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, seems to me to have entered upon this simple question in a Party manner which was quite unjustified. After all, what he is doing is virtually accusing us of doing nothing about this great problem, which has existed, so far as I am aware, ever since I have known the slightest thing about farming—and this dates back well over fifty years. I must remind the noble Earl that there have been two things of

765
some consequence done about this since the end of the war. The first was the Act of 1948, put on to the Statute Book by this Party, of which I am proud to be a member, and by the Minister of Agriculture who was the finest Minister of Agriculture this country has ever seen—namely, Tom Williams, now Lord Williams of Barnburgh. The second thing done was clone by the noble Lords opposite by means of the section in the 1963 Act referred to by the noble Earl. The noble Earl quite rightly referred to this section in scathing terms. He said this was not worth having; that it just was not worth bothering about. So the Party which is accused of being the Party of the urban section of the population, and not of the countryside, has done more for the farming community than the present Opposition did in the whole of their thirteen years.
This is not a problem which has suddenly come upon us; it is something which has been with us since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution—that land is taken for development and tenant farmers do not get all the compensation to which they think they are entitled. This is an old one: it dates back for well over a hundred years. What I cannot understand is that, during all the years the noble Earl and his friends were in power, they really did not tackle this matter. But, my Lords, I did not want to start this. It was only the stimulation of the noble Earl that caused me to enter into this in a Party fashion.
EARL. FERRERS: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord? I do apologise for needling him in that fashion—I did not realise he was so susceptible—but he did say that I accused the Government of doing nothing. That is not true; I did not accuse them of doing nothing. I just said that here was a problem, and I hoped they would be able to face it for the future.
LORD CHAMPION: It sounded remarkably like that when I was listening to the noble Earl. After all, he should not come here and beat the Party drum and expect the people who are opposite him to just sit down and say, "Ah, well, the poor chap has got to say this; he has been pressed by his Central Office to say this sort of thing ", just in case it is repeated during the Election days which lie immediately ahead. But I will
766
go no further in this matter. I think I have gone far enough to illustrate that this Party, despite the fact that it springs mainly from the urban section of our population, has given tremendous thought to the problems of the countryside and of those who make their living in the countryside.
I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, that this is a matter which is worrying tenant farmers at the present time; and, while I have no remedy to announce to-day, I am glad to be able to say something about the problem and the complexities that confront my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture and the other Ministers who are involved in a solution of this problem, or in attempting a solution of this problem. As I said just now, the question of compensation where tenant farmers lose land to development is not new, but it is topical because all over the country at this moment a large number of developments are taking place. They are taking place for town projects and they are taking place for group projects. There are many aspects of development which are bound to affect tenants who up to now, or at any rate until recently, have had no fear of, or little cause to fear, dispossession, or to concern themselves very much about the compensation they might be entitled to as a result of their being dispossessed of the land upon which they have been gaining their living. I realise that what we are discussing here is not compensation as such, but whether compensation ought to be reasonably generous. This is really the problem. As the noble Earl has said, compensation is payable already. I will just summarise the arrangements provided under existing legislation.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, may I be permitted to interrupt? The noble Lord says that compensation should be generous. This is not my point. My point is that compensation should be fair.
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, this is a nice use of words. I should have thought that, if I were a tenant, I should prefer "generous" to "fair". But I have no objection to this, and it is fairness that we shall look for in this connection.
A private landlord always terminates the tenancy under the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1948, and public authorities, even those possessing compulsory powers,

767
sometimes do the same. In these cases the tenant is entitled to compensation, as is provided under that Act: for improvements and tenant-right (with which we are not concerned to-day) and, under section 34, for disturbance. Incidentally I should have thought that the noble Earl's point about drainage and so on would have been to some extent covered by the fact that compensation is payable for improvements, and as he knows, for residual manurial values. If he does not know that, I am sure he should. This section fixes the amount of compensation within, so to speak, a bracket—it cannot be less than one year's rent, nor more than two years' rent. Between these limits it is for the tenant to show that he should receive more than the minimum.
That is one procedure. There is an alternative, which was not, I think, mentioned by the noble Earl, for authorities possessing compulsory powers. They can, and often do, proceed by notice of entry. The tenant's claim for compensation is then made under Section 121 of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act 1845. It amounts to the value of his unexpired legal interest, plus the loss or injury he may sustain, whether by severance or total loss of the holding—and this includes loss of profit. Under this procedure, if the term of unexpired legal interest is short, the tenant will get correspondingly less for loss of profit—and this is a point we have very much in mind.
In addition, there is the discretionary power to which I have already referred, as did the noble Earl, and which is given by Section 22 of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1963—but only to authorities possessing compulsory acquisition powers—to compensate a displaced tenant for the loss which in their opinion he will sustain to his agricultural business. The noble Earl asked me whether anyone has ever benefited under this section of the 1963 Act. I have made some inquiries, and the answer given to me is that up to the present no great use has been made of the power, and the number of people benefiting is not known. But I must add that there has not been much time for the exercise of this power. It does not help—and this I must stress—the tenant who gets notice to quit from a
768
private landlord. It can be invoked only in the case of displacement as a result of action by authorities which have powers of compulsory acquisition.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, may I interrupt again? The noble Lord mentioned the third alternative where acquiring bodies would enter into the land first under the Lands Clauses Act 1845. I think the latest Act is the 1965 one. The point I would make is that there is a tremendous amount of vagueness under that legislation, even though it is the 1965 Act. I note that the Valuers' Association and other bodies hope that this particular legislation will be cleared up, so that valuers may know what the real price is.
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, I am not sure about there being an Act of 1965. The Act to which I referred was very much earlier: it was the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act of 1845. Any doubts that exist here are very much in the mind of my right honourable friend—and I shall come to this later when I am taking about what my right honourable friend is hoping to do about this whole problem of compensation to the tenant farmer.
The first part of this Question asks whether the Government are aware that in some cases tenant farmers who have to give up land because of development suffer financial hardship. I appreciate the moderate wording of the Question here, which is, of course, whether we are—or whether society is—paying enough to the tenant farmer who is displaced for development purposes. The noble Earl's wording of the Question was very moderate—much more moderate than the words of the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers. The answer is that in some cases there is a large degree of hardship suffered, but not in all cases. For example, if a tenant so affected happens anyhow to be on the point of retiring from the exacting occupation of present-day farming—that is, that he would himself have given notice to quit a year or so later—if he then gets his compensation for disturbance "according to the book" nobody would maintain that he suffers financial hardship.
However, the Government are not going to shelter behind a minority of cases and say that because improved

769
arrangements are not needed for everyone they are not needed at all. If the tenant is in his prime and is farming satisfactorily, then we all know that he is very unlikely, because of the security of tenure provisions, to have to quit unless the land is taken for nonagricultural purposes. It has been argued that such farmers, unless it was known that early development was likely, have an expectation of continuing on their holdings which is cut short by the notice to quit for development—a notice which of course is not contestable—and that this loss of expectation is not adequately compensated by the provisions which I have explained.
Moreover, where the proportion of his holdings lost is high, such a tenant will have to find other land or even another home. It is further argued that this is becoming more and more difficult to do. We recognise the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, that if one is thrown out of his farm it is extremely difficult to get another and that this is a great hardship, as it is even to have to cut off one hundred or so acres of a three hundred and fifty acre farm. But I am bound to say—and I am absolutely positive of this—there is a great deal of sympathy on both Front Benches in this matter. Both the noble Earl and I feel the same about this—as I am sure do both my right honourable friend in another place and Sir Martin Redmayne who is opposite him on the Front Benches there.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, that was about six months ago. It is now Mr. Godber.
LORD CHAMPION: I do not follow these moves. They happen so often it is impossible to follow them all. All I can say is that they will be to no purpose.
As regards the first part of the Question, the Government agree that in some cases there may be financial hardship. I now turn to the second part of the Question, whether the Government will consider improving legislation on this point. The noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, referred to a statement by my right honourable friend Mr. Peart about this very thing. In the quotation which was used he said he thought that Section 22 of the 1963 Act should be made obligatory. Immediately upon assuming office
770
my right honourable friend started an inquiry about this aspect and came to the conclusion that utilising this method might not be the best procedure. He instituted a Departmental inquiry into something which would enable tenant farmers to benefit not only in cases where the compulsory purchase process had been evoked or a private landlord might have to pay something additional; but this inquiry has not yet finished.
I should tell your Lordships, frankly, that any arrangements for improved compensation would have to be designed with an impossible degree of elaboration if they were to meet with absolute fairness all the gradations of circumstances which can occur between the very different kinds of case which I have mentioned. Even to approach fairness between individuals, some way of differentiating between cases must be found, and this will not be easy. However, I repeat that the problem arises whether the landlord is a private owner or a public authority. It therefore affects the balance of interest between landlord and tenant. The Minister will not act in such a matter without considering the views of the Country Landowners' Association, and the National Farmers' Union. I think that the views expressed in this debate also must be taken into consideration. The points which the noble Earl has brought to the attention of the House must be considered by whoever may happen to be in charge when a final decision is taken. That applies also to what was said by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers. Although I did not agree with some of the comments which he made, they form part of this debate and must be considered. Some of his remarks made good sense. I am hoping that my right honourable friend will consider all these things when eventually a decision has to be taken.
As I am sure that the noble Earl will know, these bodies are giving thought to this knotty problem—and it is a knotty problem. They appreciate that the Government ought not to be overgenerous to the tenant at the expense of the landlord, otherwise there would be a real risk that the developments genuinely needed by the community would he hindered. I am not in a position to-day to say what is the solution most acceptable to these bodies. Your Lordships will appreciate that even if we

771
knew it, such a solution would not necessarily be free from difficulties such as incompatibility with the provisions for compensation for tenants outside agriculture. Despite what was said by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, shopkeepers have to be considered in this connection. They may be losing their livelihood. But I agree that the degree of hardship which they may suffer may be much less than that suffered by a tenant farmer who has no hope of securing another farm and continuing to make a living.
My Lords, it follows from what I have said that some time may elapse before the Government can decide on a remedy for the problem to which the noble Earl has drawn attention. It will also be clear from what I have said that no effective remedy could be administered without some change in legislation. I think, however, that I have said enough to demonstrate that the Government will not only consider the problem but are giving it serious and urgent study. Those last words are not meaningless, as they may sometimes be. Words like "urgent" and "serious" sometimes flow glibly from the lips of politicians, particularly from those on the other side of the House, but the Government are certainly giving this matter the urgent study which we think it deserves, because we recognise the degree of hardship often experienced by tenant farmers dispossessed of their land.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, in view of the fact that the noble Lord,
772
Lord Champion, has said that, so far as he is aware, no payments so far have been made under Section 22 of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, and he has also been good enough to advise us that discussions will continue for some time, may I ask whether he could advise the Minister to direct the inquiring bodies to make use of Section 22, because I think that is what is worrying a lot of tenant farmers?
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, I did not say that no use had been made of these powers.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: I thought the noble Lord said that.
LORD CHAMPION: No; all I said was that up to the present no great use has been made, and the number of people benefiting is not known. As regards telling the authorities that they have these powers, the noble Earl, who supported the legislation when it went through the House, will know that the Act does not make it obligatory on local authorities, but gives them a discretionary power. I think they ought to use it, but it is not for me or the Government to instruct them to do this. Were I a tenant, or were I advising a tenant, I should immediately say, "Appeal to the appropriate authority to ensure that it uses Section 22 of the Act of 1963". Beyond that I think we ought not to go.
House adjourned at seven minutes past seven o'clock.