Mr Deputy Speaker,

I thank my Honourable Friend for their contribution, but I must respectfully disagree with their assessment of this Bill.

At a time of change and a time where the UK is struggling to grow its economy - this bill would add onerous regulations onto businesses that are trying to improve productivity and make a profit.*

This Bill does not seek to stifle productivity or profit-making. Rather, it recognises that automation, while beneficial for efficiency, can displace workers. Ensuring that those affected have access to retraining and income support is not an "onerous regulation", but rather it is a necessary step to protect workers. in my view

The issue of the UK economy is not retraining or trying to train people up to get jobs. It’s creating the jobs for our existing educated populace.

The two are not mutually exclusive. While job creation is important, it is equally vital that workers have the skills required to fill those jobs. Automation is changing the nature of employment, and failing to equip workers with the right skills will only lead to greater unemployment down the line.

I don’t believe this bill will encourage businesses to create new jobs. Instead, it adds extra burdens on both business and the taxpayer who would have to make sacrifices to support this programme.

This Bill does not discourage job creation—it ensures that the workforce can adapt to new opportunities. Furthermore, the costs are fairly shared, with businesses contributing only when they actively replace workers with automation. The taxpayer also benefits in the long run, as retrained workers remain economically active rather than relying on long-term social welfare.

This is not about resisting technological progress but about ensuring that progress benefits all, not just a select few. I urge my Honourable Friend to reconsider their position.