Throughout recorded history man has striven to harness nature's energy and nature's raw materials for his own benefit. No Union of Prehistoric Stonemasons objected that the coming of the Iron Age would put them out of business. We know of no industrial action by the Society of Manual Hauliers when the wheel first came on the market. Until comparatively recently in history no-one questioned that man's use of more, and increasingly complex, machinery was a highly desirable evolution of the relationship between man and his environment.
And the first doubts, which were heard in this country at the time of our first industrial revolution, were partly based on fears that the operation of the new machinery sometimes meant unacceptable working conditions—insufferably repetitive, strenuous, dangerous, or damaging to health. [end p1] Relief from such conditions is one of the major objectives, and one of the major achievements, of modern robotics.
So we have robots which will put their hands into a furnace. Robots which will check a lorry for an unexploded bomb. Robots which will clean skyscraper windows and explore the sea floor. Not the sort of job for which there would be a flood of applicants if they were advertised.
But there is another fear that robots will replace jobs. Indeed the heart of what this conference is about is the differing roles of man and machine.
What would many Victorians have replied if you had asked them what could be the employment consequences of the replacement of the horse by the internal combustion engine? [end p2]
Disastrous, they would have said. Look at all the coachmen, saddlers, blacksmiths, and stable boys who'd be put out of jobs. Only a few highly skilled people were going to be needed to make car engines. How could you have explained what a traffic light was? Or a motorway service station? Or the extra jobs in tourism, the extra pleasure in travel? It is always possible to identify jobs at risk; it is never possible to predict the creation of jobs which are by definition unimaginable.
Just as the development of the motor car opened new areas of employment which could not have been foreseen in its early stages, so I believe will the development of automated manufacturing and robotics.
But yes, there is a threat posed by the development of robots. And, in a way, it is a threat to employment; it is the threat of failure to compete: a failure which will face those who do not grasp the opportunities offered by robotics. [end p3] Their goods will become more expensive. Their quality will deteriorate. Their technology will fall behind. Ultimately, they will go out of business. And then jobs really will be lost. And our people will buy goods from those countries which have embraced new technology. They will have the jobs and we will have the unemployment.
The opportunities I have seen displayed here today are truly astonishing. —There is a robot which performs in 11 seconds what takes a man 9 minutes. —I am told that productivity improvement by a factor of three is commonplace. —The whole production process can be dramatically changed. In Sweden, robotics have changed the manufacture of fibreglass hulls for yachts from a low output craft industry into a high output production line. [end p4]
Robots actually like monotonous tasks, don't know what danger is, don't have to breathe fresh air, seldom fall ill and never quarrel.
So the message is as clear now as it was in the early days of the internal combustion engine: those who use the new technology will find jobs and prosperity; those who do not will drift into stagnation and ever increasing unemployment. Japan has nearly 6,000 robots and 2.4 per cent unemployment; Germany has 1,250 robots and 4 per cent unemployment; Sweden has 1,200 robots and 2.5 per cent unemployment. We have only 370 robots, and I am sure none of my audience needs reminding of our level of unemployment.
I am told that Japanese workers complain to their management if their companies do not automate. They realise that if you don't keep up, you close down; robots create wealth, not redundancies. Take motor bycycles. In the old days the Norton company used to produce about ten cycles per man year. When it went out of business the Meriden co-operative took over. [end p5] But even with better industrial relations, it has still only managed fourteen cycles per man year; and they are in considerable financial difficulty.
On the other hand, I understand that with advanced manufacturing techniques, including robots, Yamaha produce about 200 cycles each man year. And the real lesson is that they employ 5,000 people. There are only 150 jobs at Meriden.
So the British Government is firmly committed to encouraging our industry to automate, and to introduce robotics where appropriate. We have assisted two British robot manufacturers, and through them we have helped several companies to use robots. Our support for robotics will continue.
And there is a wider reason for that encouragement. The more robots British industry uses, the greater will be our experience and the more effective the feedback into the second and third generations of robots now being planned. The rewards there will be even greater. [end p6]
This Conference and Exhibition can make an important contribution to the awareness and understanding of the role of automation; and of industrial robots, and their value in improving productivity and competitiveness. I hope all concerned will lose no time in applying that understanding. Technological progress is as inevitable as the march of time. We must march with it.
I formally declare Automan '81 open.