COMPUTERS FOR RESEARCH

HL Deb 02 March 1966 vol 273 cc688-711

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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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, 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 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.

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 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 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 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, 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 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 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 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 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.