COMPUTERS FOR RESEARCH

HL Deb 02 March 1966 vol 273 cc715-57

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 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 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.

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 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 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 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 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 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, 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 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 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 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 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 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, 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 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 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 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 (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, 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 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 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. 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, 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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- 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 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 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.