Automation: Economic Benefits

Tuesday 22nd April 2025 Westminster Hall

18:01

[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.

18:14

[The Minister for Creative Industries, Arts and Tourism (Chris Bryant)]

Finally, somebody speaks up for the robots. We have been waiting for centuries. The robots have been clamouring outside, waiting for the moment when somebody would speak up for them, and I am sure that they will be delighted about the way that my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (John Slinger) has done so today.

My hon. Friend made a point right at the beginning about the cultural aspects of how we view the word robotic, which was interesting, was it not? If we say that a politician is robotic, we somehow dismiss them and think that that is inappropriate. Instead, it might actually mean that they are accurate, precise and do things on time. In addition—I suppose this is because I am the Minister for the creative industries—it makes me think of “Hamlet”. Are robotics good or bad? Well, as it says in “Hamlet”:

“There is nothing either good or bad but thinking makes it so.”

I think that is part of the problem we have here. For some reason or other, we have decided that automation is bad, but actually my hon. Friend is quite right to say that in so many different regards it can only possibly be good.

Often, robotics can take away the drudgery from a repetitive process that a human being might find difficult to maintain in as accurate a way as a robot. It can enhance productivity; several Members who are not even obsessed with this matter are none the less interested in how we can improve our productivity in the UK, because it is one of the ways in which we fail economically. Robotics can also improve the quality and reliability of a product. So, a business that significantly invests in automation can end up, despite the up-front capital costs, recouping that investment much faster than it would if it had relied on other means of producing its goods.

Automation is not about stealing jobs; it is about enabling humans to do other things, including other jobs where human creativity and human ability and the relationship of one human to another may be more important than the repetitive element of the work.

My hon. Friend referred to running the London marathon and asked whether robots can run a marathon for us. I do not think that is the point of a marathon. The point of a marathon is that it is far too long; it is a preposterously lengthy race. I have run the London marathon three times. I had decided that I was not going to race against anybody else; I was just racing against myself, to get to the end. That is my advice to him about how to run a marathon. It was all going swimmingly until I got to the very end—to the last 200 yards—and two women dressed as Bakewell tarts overtook me. Then, I was very upset and decided that I was going to beat the tarts, and I did. However, the point is that there are things where only we humans can compete and where only we can make a difference.

Robotics can also provide solutions to pressing social problems, including autonomous vehicles for transport, which we have not referred to yet, and robotic maintenance and monitoring, supporting clean energy transition. Robotic innovations can also enhance social care, which might be a very significant part of improving productivity and the quality of the care that can be provided, so that the personal human involvement is not about doing the drudgery.

Robotics can also help with surgery in hospitals. It is depressing that we have lagged behind many other countries in bringing, for instance, laparoscopic robotics into hospitals up and down the land. I had two such operations last year; if tea is poured into me, it just pours out as if I were a colander. The significant improvement in the amount of time, the accuracy, the safety and the lack of infection that laparoscopic robotics can provide in surgery is absolutely significant. For instance, as in my case, the ability to remove a melanoma from inside a lung—collapsing the lung and then removing the melanoma—is quite extraordinary and would never have been possible unless we brought automation into the system. However, that requires capital investment.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right that we are not a world leader in automation; I wish we were. I have slightly different figures from his—mine might be a year out of date—but I think that, according to the International Federation of Robotics, we were 24th in the world in 2023, but it may be that in 2024 we were 23rd in the world. My hon. Friend pointed out that we are not in the top 10—we are the only G7 country not to be, which is an embarrassment for us. This country has innovated in so many areas, although once we have innovated we have sometimes found it difficult to take things to market and get them invested in—other countries have been better at that—so that is one of the things that the Government need to address. That is shameful. As several Members said, it is part of the problem with our productivity. If we could only get to par with others in the top 10, we would improve our productivity by roughly 20%. British Ministers have been dreaming of that kind of significant improvement in productivity for the past 15 or 20 years, because that would enable the economy to grow far more significantly.

My hon. Friend had a different figure for the significant improvement that we could see in gross value added. My figure is that £150 billion could be added to our GVA by 2035 if we seize hold of the opportunities that robotics and automation provide.

My hon. Friend referred to some of the problems. As I said earlier, I think one of the problems is reluctance. That is partly due to an ethical question: how do we ensure that people do not lose jobs but find different jobs in which they are more effective, productive and engaged? There are also some moral anxieties about robotics—perhaps some of the films that we have produced over the years, which he wittily referred to, have not entirely helped in that.

Another issue is access to cash—in particular, to capital financing. In the discussions I have had as a Department for Science, Innovation and Technology Minister, people from the industry have repeatedly said to me, “It is easier if you are in London and the south-east than it is if you are in the rest of the United Kingdom.” That is another aspect that we need to change. These issues are about automation not just here in London but throughout the United Kingdom, and in so many different sectors. I have responsibility for space, and obviously robotics and automation are a key part of delivering an ambitious space programme in future years. I believe we can be a world leader if we focus on the things that we are particularly good at, and where we have a unique contribution to make, but I am conscious that we need to get the security aspects right.

There are things that we are already doing. As my hon. Friend knows, the Government have a Made Smarter adoption programme, whose budget we doubled to £16 million a year, starting from 1 April 2025. That will undoubtedly make a difference. As he said, we are developing an industrial strategy. Members might think that the country should always have an industrial strategy, a bit like they might think that we should always have a digital inclusion strategy. Those two things have to go hand in hand. We are developing an industrial strategy and, just as in space, we are rightly focusing on the things where we have a unique capability. Through the Department for Business and Trade, we have decided to focus on sectors where we think there is an opportunity for economic growth and where the UK has something special to offer.

I am really glad that the advanced manufacturing plan includes work on robotics, which is key to several elements of advanced manufacturing. I am slightly in danger here, because I have read it and I cannot tell my hon. Friend what is in it given that we will be publishing it later, but it has not got to its final draft yet. I think that a lot of things that he has been saying will be reflected in that document.

My hon. Friend said that this was not about AI, but sometimes robotics and automation are referred to as “embodied AI”. Obviously, there are significant elements of robotics that work best when they include a learning capacity. That is why I am really proud of the AI opportunities action plan that we launched earlier this year. It has 50 different proposals. We are taking action in relation to all 50, and have been consulting on two. That includes looking at the AI skills gap—a significant aspect, which hon. Friend mentioned. We need to make sure that we have the skills in the UK to develop automation.

Likewise, we have to look at whether we have enough AI graduates coming out of universities, or even starting in that education process. That too is not just a matter for one part of the country; it is a matter for economic growth throughout the country. We also need to increase the diversity of the talent pool that comes into that world. It is not just in one industry, such as automotives, where that might be significant, but a whole series of industries—nearly every one—and also lots of our public services that could be better delivered using embodied artificial intelligence. Similarly, we need to look at the education pathways into AI, and therefore into robotics as well.

Part of DSIT’s funding to UK Research and Innovation goes to Innovate UK, which is responsible for the catapult centres. That includes the one to which my hon. Friend has already referred, the high value manufacturing catapult. DSIT is providing £8.8 billion to UKRI in this financial year; Innovate UK will receive £948 million of that. The high value manufacturing catapult is a strategic research and innovation hub for industry, commercialising the UK’s most advanced manufacturing ideas. The seven centres help businesses to transform the products they sell, the way they make them and the skills of their workforce, to remain competitive globally.

I am delighted that, as has been mentioned, we have had a historic debate on automation. I hope I have not provided a robotic answer to my hon. Friend’s questions. I very much hope that when we produce our industrial strategy in the next few weeks and months, he will be proud to say that we are embracing and fully behind this drive for greater productivity through greater automation, while always holding on to the belief that it is not about replacing people’s jobs. It is about enabling people, with that human element, to play the human role they need to play in whatever industry it may be, whether the creative or automotive or other. My final thought is that the marathon is far too long a distance. I wish him well. I hope he comes in at more than three hours and 24 minutes.

Question put and agreed to.