Automation: Economic Benefits

John Slinger Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd April 2025 Westminster Hall

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the potential merits of automation for the economy.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse. I do not want to sound too dramatic, but hon. Members should know that this is an historic debate: it is the first time, to my knowledge, that automation specifically has been debated in Westminster Hall, and perhaps even in Parliament. This will also perhaps be the first speech in rather a long time about business and innovation not to focus solely on AI, which I am sure is a relief to us all.

I am going to argue that automation is not a threat to the UK economy; it is one of the greatest untapped opportunities that we have. From boosting productivity to creating high-quality and high-skilled jobs, automation can power our growth, competitiveness and resilience, but for reasons that I will touch on, and which I would be grateful for colleagues’ views on, the UK is, unlike in so many other areas, sadly not yet a world leader. Before I get too far into my speech, let me define automation as the action or process of introducing automatic equipment or devices into a manufacturing or other process or facility. It is not just about robotic arms.

There are a few problems relating to automation. One of them, at the most basic level, is that automation—robotics—conjures up deep-set primordial fears in many people. It is the fear of the march of the robots, of Terminator, and perhaps at a less hyperbolic level, of machines taking our jobs, particularly in manufacturing. Perhaps even in this place we fear automatons taking over our roles as Members of Parliament. I will argue strongly against such fear regarding automation.

I want to dispel the myth about robots stealing jobs. It simply does not stack up. In the UK, unemployment sits at 4.4%, similar to the US, where it is about 4.2%, but the United States has 300 robots per 10,000 workers—more than double the UK’s figure. The same is true for Japan, where the unemployment rate was just 2.4% in February 2025, despite its having 419 robots per 10,000 workers. In South Korea, the trend continues: unemployment stood at 2.9% in March 2025, even with an impressive 1,012 robots per 10,000 workers. Automation replaces tasks, not people, and in so doing it creates better-paid, more fulfilling jobs.

The current situation in the UK, according to the latest International Federation of Robotics figures, shows just how far British manufacturing has to climb in terms of automation adoption. The UK is now 23rd in the global robot density league table—that is not a phrase that I thought I would necessarily read out in the House, but I have just done so—with 119 robots per 10,000 workers, compared with a global average of 162. We have also dropped out of the top 10 global manufacturing nations, sadly; we are now in 12th place. Our global competitors are investing heavily in productivity. Sadly, in too many cases, we are falling behind, notwithstanding the excellent work of the Minister and the Government in this regard.

The UK is lagging behind for three main reasons: first, a reluctance to invest in capital equipment; secondly, perceptions of complexity and high up-front costs around robotics and automation; and thirdly, a lack of confidence and clear guidance, especially among small and medium-sized enterprises. Both Automate UK and the Manufacturing Technologies Association have highlighted that investment and confidence gap.

[Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)]

As my hon. Friend says, productivity in this country has flatlined since 2008. It is great that he has secured this debate, because productivity is one of my pet subjects, and as he has said, the Manufacturing Technology Centre is doing some fantastic work. I am sure he will have seen the video last week of Chinese robots running a marathon—what an extraordinary sight that was. Does he agree that while we need to develop all sorts of policies, fiscal incentives are key to getting the investment that businesses need to deliver on increasing robotisation and automation?

[John Slinger]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. I am hopeful that the Minister will refer to some of the measures that the Government can take, and are already taking, to increase productivity. I must say, as someone who is running the London marathon on Sunday, I am slightly worried about the rapid rise of robots in that particular field—I am certainly going to beat any that I see.

The Manufacturing Technologies Association is calling for Government leadership to break down the barriers and deliver a national framework to accelerate adoption. While knocking on doors, which I am sure many colleagues were also doing over the Easter break, I met a young entrepreneur who has a small robotics and automation systems business. He wanted to expand but was not aware of what finance was available to make the capital investments he needed, nor of how he might take on an apprentice or two. I helped as far as I could as an MP by signposting him to the right people, but it shows a lack of cut-through regarding support for automation.

I have seen the potential of automation first hand on visits to companies like FANUC UK, in my constituency, part of a high-tech cluster at Ansty Park, which also includes the London Electric Vehicle Company and the Manufacturing Technology Centre, or the MTC, which I am proud to represent and champion here. I have seen how automation transforms jobs, shifting roles towards programming, maintenance and process design. I have also witnessed, first hand, how automation—due to its requirement for high-skilled workers—stimulates company investment in skills development, with apprenticeship programmes, outreach to schools and sponsorship of competitions. FANUC UK is a long-standing sponsor of the WorldSkills UK industrial robotics competition.

I have met apprentices at FANUC, the MTC and elsewhere, and seen their excitement and enthusiasm—as I am sure colleagues across the House have—when meeting young people who are training to become the masters of machines, unleashing economic potential and enabling new innovations to be born and grow. The MTC, which forms one of nine Government-backed Catapult centres that bring together industry and academia to turbocharge innovation and solutions—its progenitor being my noble Friend, Lord Mandelson—even runs an education campus. The generous sponsorship of £15 million over 15 years by Lloyds Bank has enabled it to offer numerous apprenticeship programmes that cater for our most innovative companies.

Another concern raised with me by businesses I have visited is that companies do not want, or are unable, to invest in automation and therefore cannot expand to meet the demand for their products and services. However, some solutions are already under way. In addition to the excellent work of FANUC UK in my constituency, the MTC is taking a leading role in the debate about automation, and having an effect. It is providing independent advice to help businesses on their first automation journey, and has opened a new robot experience centre, giving companies the chance to test, trial and learn in a risk-free space.

The MTC is also focused on upskilling and reskilling, with targeted workforce development especially for SMEs, which are, of course, the backbone of our economy. It is also driving the west midlands robotics and autonomous systems cluster, helping to build a strong regional ecosystem. There are lots of phrases that I am quite surprised to be saying, but none the less, this is the kind of support businesses need—and it is replicable at scale.

There is a huge prize available to the UK. Make UK estimates that if we scale up our SME manufacturers, we could add £83 billion to our manufacturing output—lifting us to seventh in the world rankings. To deliver that, we must double our robotics adoption by 2030.

[Mrs Sureena Brackenridge (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)]

I represent a constituency with a long and proud tradition of manufacturing heritage. While discussions on automation usually focus on AI, I am grateful to my hon. Friend for recognising the importance of robotics in this sector. The UK lags behind its global competitors in robot density; we are the lowest among the G7 nations. That gap reflects missed opportunities for productivity and growth. Does he agree that it is vital we invest in robotics to rejuvenate our manufacturing base, create high-skilled jobs and apprenticeships across the west midlands, and back projects such as the green innovation corridor in Wolverhampton North East to secure our place as global leaders?

[John Slinger]

I wholeheartedly agree. Automation and robotics are really just a modern tool, and we would not be against businesses and manufacturers using the most effective tools. It is vital that they are able to adopt this particular form of tool to enable them to develop the most innovative products that can drive our economy in the west midlands, which I know my hon. Friend and I agree is vital for our region, and for the UK more widely.

In our constituencies, people young and old have the aspiration to utilise automation to chart new manufacturing territory. Notwithstanding the excellent work of organisations such as those I have already mentioned, of the local chamber of commerce, which I have met, or of local councils such as Rugby borough council and its new business hub in the town hall, or indeed the excellent work of the Minister and his colleagues, there is more to be done to educate people about the benefits of automation and provide the ecosystem needed, with more skills, training, grants and networking opportunities —and through this, to empower people.

I urge the Minister to work on a clear road map to match our competitor industrialised nations on robotics and automation with specific attention to SMEs, which make up 95% of UK manufacturing. The road map should aim to address perceptions of automation, lack of knowledge about procurement and accessibility to finance. To drive productivity, create high-quality jobs and unlock growth, I urge the Government to develop a national programme to supercharge automation adoption. I would be happy to facilitate ministerial engagement with the MTC team to explore its successful model and how it can be rolled out across the UK.

I ask that, as the Minister and his colleagues finalise the much-needed industrial strategy, they give a renewed focus to the huge potential that automation offers to our businesses, to UK plc and to our people—particularly the younger generation. They want to be the architects of our industrial future and automation can help them to achieve that. It is not just about machines; it is about people, equipping our workforce, empowering our SMEs and delivering prosperity in every region of the UK. Automation is how we will get there.

I came into this House because I believe that democratic politics work. I believe in government and the need for good government to provide the support, the ecosystem and more that is needed to unleash the potential of our country. I know that the Minister and the rest of the Government agree that more than ever we need a dynamic partnership between the Government, skills providers, colleges, universities and businesses—large, medium and small—that helps our manufacturers, our innovators, benefit from automation in a way that has not happened before.

It is not the robots that we should be worried about; it is not building enough of them. I think it is safe to say that we are in the middle of the creation of—willing or otherwise—a new technological, industrial, defence, trading and perhaps even geopolitical paradigm right now. As it is being reforged, with the metal still molten, the need for home-grown advanced manufacturing and innovation is growing, as is the importance of improving productivity and unleashing innovation. I hope that in today’s debate I have spoken up for the robots and for automation, because they are not the dystopian usurpers of human inspiration and productive labour; they are, in fact, the enablers of it.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Slinger Excerpts

Wednesday 26th March 2025 Commons Chamber

The Prime Minister was asked—

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

Q1. If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 26 March.

[The Prime Minister (Keir Starmer)]

Today’s spring statement will showcase a Government going further and faster on the economy. We are greenlighting the lower Thames crossing, investing £2 billion in building 80,000 affordable homes for working families, training 60,000 young people—the next generation of construction workers—and fixing millions of potholes. We are undoing a decade of stagnation, bringing jobs and opportunities for working people and securing Britain’s future.

Tomorrow, I shall meet President Macron in Paris to discuss further our efforts to secure a lasting peace in Ukraine. May I also welcome the delegation from the Bring Kids Back initiative who are in the Public Gallery? The abduction of Ukrainian children is grotesque, and the UK will play our full part to bring them home. It is a stark reminder that any peace settlement must see Russia held accountable for its deplorable actions.

This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today.

[John Slinger]

Under this Labour Government, NHS waiting lists are down for five months in a row. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] The Hospital of St Cross in my constituency of Rugby is playing its part, but many of my constituents remain concerned about long waits in A&E, which we inherited from the Conservatives—especially those constituents who have to travel to the general hospital in Coventry. Will the Prime Minister set out how our plan for change to bring the NHS back into the heart of Government will help us to support the frontline and deliver better emergency care closer to the community, which our constituents have long called for?

[The Prime Minister]

Our plan for change has already cut NHS waiting lists by almost 200,000. That has happened for five months in a row during the winter months. The local trust’s waiting lists in my hon. Friend’s area are down 93%, and he is doing great job for his community. We have already delivered 2 million extra appointments that we promised because of the record investment in the Budget. The Conservatives cannot have it both ways: if they welcome NHS investment, they cannot criticise raising the money to pay for it.

Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords]

John Slinger Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 12th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr James Frith (Bury North) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to have the opportunity to contribute further on this important Bill. I thank Ministers, particularly the Minister for Data Protection and Telecoms, for their ongoing attention and for being in listening mode, particularly on the copyright matters that have been so dominant so far.

The Bill rightly modernises data regulations, which will spur growth and improve public services, making everyday life better. When put to good use and used fairly and effectively, data can enhance efficiency across sectors, from food supply chains and commercial forecasting to healthcare. It is a powerful prospect with enormous benefits. The challenge is in ensuring that those benefits reach everyone. Given the demands placed on the Bill by the amendments tabled in the other place, I hope that it proceeds into Committee. As it does so, we will gain insight from the Government’s ongoing and related consultation on copyright and AI.

Today’s debate is concerned with the use of data to drive progress; it speaks to how we can live better, and how we can live best, with AI. We do not need to accept the false choice of innovate versus regulate. In considering the countries either side of us, it can feel as though there are only two options—one or the other; zeroes or ones—but the UK must act now. This is a national cause with international consequences. Faced with demands for innovation while others call for regulation, we should bid for harmonisation. Harmony is the language not of compromise, but of complement—a value greater than the sum of its parts. We must understand the strength of all contributions to that harmony.

No country has got this right yet, and this is our chance to learn from a blend of approaches. International examples should be observed. AI should be harnessed to be an honest broker, which is why transparency is key. In silicon valley, exceptions have been made to the US’s general approach, and the creative and tech industries are balanced accordingly. The UK should embrace transparency and maintain the strengths of both sectors. Europe understands the role of transparency, though there is little evidence that this has led to more licensing for copyright holders. We must not assume that one will automatically lead to the other, or that this will alleviate the concerns of our creative sector. Singapore has a broad AI training exception, but it has a minimal creative sector. The UK, with its proud creative industry, should not make flawed comparisons with a country without the same creative strengths, outputs and exports.

Just as transparency is demanded in our supply chains, so too must it apply to our code chains. Arguments suggesting that transparency would be too burdensome feel disingenuous. In Select Committee hearings, the argument for transparency, which represents a giant step forward in resolving the tension between AI and creators, seems to have been deliberately opposed by those seeking to excuse themselves, as well as those they represent by proxy, from paying for the work of others.

The Government’s commitment to an industrial strategy includes our brilliant creative industries, but discussions with those industries should focus on how we advance and enhance them. We risk making this about how we can protect their very existence if we do not take seriously the deep alarm voiced by creators over the threat posed by AI. We also risk losing the very things that make life richer.

I urge the Government to introduce a requirement for transparency. If an AI system is trained on the works of thousands of musicians, authors and film makers, they have a right to know and a right to be paid. This could include a register. We do not tell manufacturers, energy providers or tech firms that their products should be freely used to build billion-dollar businesses without compensation. The same principle must apply to creative work. Copyright is not a barrier to innovation; it is the foundation that allows creativity to thrive.

This threat to creators’ livelihoods is particularly acute for smaller rights holders who lack the means to navigate complex systems or enforce protections against unauthorised AI use. These independent creators are the backbone of our creative ecosystem. More than 70% of them are based in our towns and regions, away from the cities, where for them, levelling up means making up. Without them, the UK’s creative engine will begin to fray and diminish. Creativity thrives not just through the marquee names but through the countless independent voices, expressions and creations that enrich our experiences.

The argument that restricting AI’s access to copyrighted works will stifle progress and leave us trailing behind other territories is incorrect. I ask again: what progress are we pursuing if it undermines the position of strength that we start from? I have seen no economic impact assessment that states that exempting music and other creative content from licensing, or introducing AI training exceptions, will boost the economy. Yes, jobs in data centres will be welcome, but they are minimal in comparison to those sustained by our creative industries. At its heart, AI is about capability and capacity. It should not facilitate the casual but disastrous dismantling of copyright. The job gains must come from skilled input and employment that puts AI to work. The harnessing of AI must be human-tethered.

We must remember that AI is a great enabler, and for our advantage. It is not a stand-alone sector; it is a transformative technology for all sectors. Our focus must therefore be on its use, not on sweeping legal exceptions that weaken copyright and risk hollowing out the very industries we are committed to growing. If there is a technological answer—a digital fingerprinting solution or a pay-as-you-go AI model—we should keep an open mind, but it is a leap to expect these solutions to come soon enough for the urgent issues at hand. The anxieties I have outlined cannot be left unresolved while we wait.

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is, like me, a musician. Is it any wonder that creatives, particularly musicians, are concerned even by the language that has been referred to across the Chamber? “Ingestion” speaks of consuming, and let us not think what else it speaks of. “Scraping” is also a horrible word. Hopefully we can reach a situation, through the consultation that the Minister and others are engaged in, where we can use better language in this space that gives more reassurance to the creative sector. Instead of “ingest” we could use “collaborate,” for example, and instead of “scrape” we could use “reward.” We might then protect our wonderful creative sector.

[Mr Frith]

I agree with everything my hon. Friend says, and I suspect he is a better musician than I am.

Dynamic Ticket Pricing

John Slinger Excerpts

Tuesday 10th September 2024 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant]

The hon. Gentleman is a terribly impatient man; I am just coming that. [Interruption.] No, we have until 7.30. He is right that we must take action on the secondary ticketing market, and we committed ourselves to doing so during the general election. We believe that those people are denying true fans the opportunity to buy tickets on the primary market and are pocketing any profit for themselves. As I said, very little of the additional revenue actually goes to artists, venues or anyone working in the live venue sector more generally. The Government are committed to putting fans back at the heart of live events, and to clamping down on unfair practices in the secondary ticketing market.

That is why we have committed to introducing new protections for consumers on ticket resales, and we will be launching a consultation in the autumn to find the best ways to address ongoing problems on the resale market. The consultation will consider a range of options, including revisiting recommendations from the Competition and Markets Authority’s 2021 report, such as putting limitations on the price of tickets listed for resale over the face value; limiting the number of tickets that individual resellers can list to the number of tickets that they can legitimately buy via the original platform; making platforms accountable for the accuracy of information about tickets that they list for sale; and ensuring that the CMA has the powers that it needs to take swift, decisive action against platforms and touts to protect consumers.

We want live events ticketing to work for UK fans. I would say that the market was made for humanity, not humanity for the market, and sometimes Government need to intervene to ensure that the market does indeed work for humanity.

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

As an Oasis fan, I too was queuing endlessly, and it proved to me that badly regulated markets have no morality. The conclusion from the dynamic pricing policy in that incident was that people with more money or touts could get those tickets. I speak as someone who played in rock bands when I was a younger man, although none so famous and successful as that of the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart). Live music is universal in that it reaches out to the souls of people of all backgrounds. I would be grateful for the Minister’s view on what he can do to ensure that as many people as possible can get tickets for live music.

[Chris Bryant]

Persuade people to do more gigs, I guess. Obviously, there are only so many tickets for certain events, but what people want to have guaranteed is that the market is not excluding them solely on the basis of price. Sometimes there is a ballot for tickets, as there is for Wimbledon, and I gather that Oasis has now introduced a partial ballot for the next round of gigs that are being advertised, but we want to look at all these issues in the round.

I should say something about the CMA announcement. Like many Members across the House, I know lots of people, including my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (John Slinger) and the Leader of the House, with stories about their process of trying to buy tickets two weekends ago for the Oasis reunion tour—I should point out that Oasis only reunites under a Labour Government. In the light of the concerns expressed by fans about the sales process, we welcome the CMA’s announcement that it has launched a formal investigation into Ticketmaster. The CMA has said that it is

“concerned that fans trying to buy Oasis tickets through Ticketmaster may not have been given clear information about ticket prices”

and has asked fans to share their experiences. Its investigation will look at whether the sale of Oasis tickets by Ticketmaster may have breached consumer protection law.

Others have greater freedom in what they can say than I do as a Minister. This is a live investigation and the CMA is an independent law enforcement body, and it is important to ensure that the independence and integrity of any investigation is protected, so, in order to avoid prejudicing the process, I am not going to comment on that investigation. I look forward to reading the CMA’s findings and I merely note that lots of people have said that they would like their money back. Following recent events, however, the Government will look at issues concerning the transparency and use of dynamic pricing in the live events sector, and we are carefully considering how that is taken forward in the light of the CMA’s announcement.

I want to talk specifically about dynamic pricing for a moment. In general terms, dynamic pricing involves a business adjusting its prices according to changing market conditions such as high and low demand. It is an established pricing strategy and it has been a feature of our live events industry for some time, at least in certain forms. As an example, I am sure that many Members will have managed to snap up cut-price tickets to popular west end shows by purchasing them on the day of the event. We are used to seeing organisers or venues slash their prices in that way in order to fill the few remaining seats.

It is also common to see early-bird tickets released at lower prices—punters essentially receive a discount on full-price tickets for an event by buying their tickets within a certain period after they go on sale or until a limited batch has been sold. Glastonbury does that, Wigmore Hall does that for people who are signed up to its programme, and for that matter, the Rhondda arts festival in Treorchy also does that. I urge people to look online and buy some tickets for next year.

In both of those scenarios, there are fans who benefit from a better deal than they might otherwise have been able to secure had they bought their tickets at another time. Equally, there will be other fans who bought their tickets at another time and had to pay a different, or indeed higher, price. Hon. Members will have their own views on all this, but I suggest it is a trade-off that most people are accustomed to, and one that we can generally accept.