Information Commissioner’s Office: Relocation

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 16th July 2025 Westminster Hall

[Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the impact of the relocation of the Information Commissioner’s Office on Tatton constituency.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. The Information Commissioner’s Office plays a crucial role in safeguarding the public’s information rights. The ICO is headed by a commissioner. It is a non-departmental public body, sponsored by the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, that is tasked with promoting openness from public bodies and ensuring data privacy for individuals. Those are principles rooted in transparency and openness, yet those principles have in recent months been somewhat absent from the ICO itself. That is why I called for this debate.

Last month, I was surprised to learn that the ICO’s head office, which has been based in Wilmslow for 40 years, will be relocating to the new Circle Square development on Oxford Road, Manchester, in autumn 2026, following the expiry of a current lease at Wycliffe House. I read this in a newspaper article and did not receive any official notice. It came as a shock not only to me but to the whole community.

Let me explain the history. The ICO first moved to Springfield House in Wilmslow in 1985. It then had just 10 employees. That figure rose to 80 by the end of the year, and the ICO now employs more than 1,000 individuals across the UK, the vast majority of whom are based in Wilmslow. The ICO is a significant employer in the town. The organisation is staffed by skilled professionals, from investigators and policy experts to technologists, lawyers and frontline support staff. All have played a critical role in delivering data protection. On top of that, this year, the Freedom of Information Act 2000 celebrates 20 years since the Act came into force, and the ICO is central to delivering that service to hold public authorities to account.

Like any well-established organisation that is rooted in a community, the ICO has become part of Wilmslow’s identity over the decades. Some 800 staff are based there. Many multi-generational families who have built their lives around the town have worked there and contributed to the ICO’s success.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the right hon. Lady. The word is used often, but she is a champion for her constituents, who will today be impressed and proud of what she has done. On those 800 jobs, does she share my concern that there been no consultation about the impact on the local economy and the community? That is incredible. How can that happen without Government having some oversight and say in what happens?

[Esther McVey]

The hon. Member gets to the nub of the issue. The impact of the removal on the local community is huge, and the fact that a quango seems to be unaccountable to a sponsoring Department is incredible.

For the people I have mentioned, the decision to relocate is not a minor disruption. It affects livelihoods, housing, community patterns and personal finances. Wilmslow, the town that helped to build up the organisation and helped it to flourish, will suddenly and inexplicably have it removed, depleting the area of jobs and local trade for local businesses.

Despite the scale of the relocation’s impact, there have been no explanations or answers about it, and the questions that I have put to the Minister about the specific details of the move remain unanswered. Can you believe it, Mr Twigg? I have been reduced to submitting freedom of information requests about the ICO, the body that oversees freedom of information requests when an organisation does not answer questions—the irony. Therein lies the major issue with quangos—their unaccountability—for no answers have come forth from the Minister or the ICO, the public body tasked with upholding information rights.

I am now attempting again to get answers in Westminster Hall. First, residents want assurances that the decision was thoroughly considered and that there was a full assessment of the impact of moving the ICO out of Wilmslow. They want information about the consultation, if one was carried out at all, in the local area with local businesses. The Minister advised, however, that that is not required by the commissioner, but I want to ask: why is it not required? He did confirm that the commissioner carried out a consultation with its employees, but I want to know what sort of consultation and what was its outcome. What were the questions asked? What were the responses? What were the percentages?

Surely, in making its decision to uproot and leave Wilmslow for Manchester, the ICO must have done some impact assessments. I know that the Government do not like impact assessments, but quangos should be doing them. The ICO should have drawn up the costs and made some calculations about the move. If those calculations have been done, where are they?

Interestingly, the Minister explained that the move was based on “access to…skills” and the “age and diversity” of the workforce in Manchester, but those answers are nonsense. What was the problem with the skills, diversity and age of the people and staff in Wilmslow? What are the Minister and the ICO saying about Wilmslow and Cheshire in those comments? Let us remember that it was Wilmslow where the organisation grew from 10 employees to 1,000 employees, hundreds of them from in and around the Wilmslow area.

What exactly do the Minister and the commissioner mean when they say the “diversity” of the workforce? That sounds discriminatory to me against the people of Cheshire, Wilmslow and Tatton. In fact, I have heard that the Government are trying to include a socioeconomic duty into the Equality Act 2010, basically discriminating against the UK’s middle classes. I would say that this is a case in point. If not, can the Minister explain why it is not? I am hoping that the Minister has some information today about the staff who will remain in Wilmslow after the move. In response to my written question, the Government said that “76 desks” will remain there until 2030—not people, desks. Is that how they view the staff of Wilmslow and Cheshire? How many staff is that, what roles will they be covering and how long will they remain in Wilmslow?

What we do know is that the office in Manchester will be smaller, so people will be working from home. That is another question. On the day after it was exposed that an extraordinary Ministry of Defence data breach led to the Afghanistan relocation, surely tighter controls must be brought in to prevent such calamitous data breaches. If that is the case, why are staff at the ICO going to be working from home at all?

The new Manchester office is smaller, and it will house approximately 250 people. Do not be shocked, Mr Twigg, but you should know that there are smaller offices in Wilmslow, in the Wilmslow area and in Cheshire too. Let us look at the cost implications of the move, just for the office space. The average cost of an office on Water Lane, where the ICO is currently based, ranges from £15 to £25 a square foot. An office in Manchester’s new Circle Square development is between £30 and £45 per square foot, plus a service charge of £7.50 per square foot. For 250 employees, each needing about 100 square feet, the expected cost in Wilmslow would have been anywhere between £375,000 and £625,000, yet in Manchester, with the added service charge, we can expect the office to cost somewhere between £937,000 and £1,312,000. That is an increase in cost ranging between £562,000 and £687,000, which is a large discrepancy. Manchester is more expensive than Wilmslow. Although the commissioner and the Minister might not care about wasting taxpayers’ money, I do, my constituents do and the taxpayer picking up the bill does.

Those questions matter to staff and the local area but getting answers has been an uphill battle. Since the Minister confirmed limited details to me late last week, it appears that he has changed his mind. In a separate reply, he advised me that his Department has “no formal role” in the relocation, and that questions should be put to the ICO directly. Does he now think that the process was sped through, and is he distancing himself from that process?

The Minister says that the move was decided by the ICO, in line with the Treasury’s Green Book principles—really? Because one of those principles is value for money, which we know has just had a hole blown through it. It seems the move was approved by the Cabinet Office, but as the sponsoring Department knows nothing about the decisions, and as the ICO has not provided a basis for the move, how on earth did the Cabinet Office sign it off, and know what it was signing off?

The claim that it is not the responsibility of DSIT simply does not pass the test. The Department is responsible for the ICO’s strategic direction and financial management. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House understand why so many people feel frustrated about buck-passing, which Departments so often do, and which simply avoids answering legitimate questions. What is the point of a sponsoring Department if it claims no role in such a significant strategic move? If the Minister overseeing the ICO cannot provide answers, who can?

The Minister advised in his answer to written questions to take queries “directly to the ICO”, but that ignores the role of the sponsoring Department as the link between Parliament and the ICO. There are no specific avenues for a Back-Bench MP to take questions to the ICO on behalf of constituents. The Information Commissioner appears before the Select Committee as and when, with the last appearance in 2023 on promoting and enforcing the Freedom of Information Act 2000, and looking at the backlog and complaints.

There is no requirement for the commissioner to reply to MPs’ correspondence or to meet set response deadlines. In essence, there is no clear or guaranteed route for a parliamentarian to scrutinise an ICO decision. That is further complicated by the structure of the ICO, which operates as a corporation sole, meaning that the commissioner holds the office individually rather than through a board.

I understand that the ICO is going through a governance reform and has appointed an interim chief executive officer, meaning that the commissioner will become the chair of the new information commission. Those reforms must come with improved mechanisms for scrutiny. If there is such confidence in the decision to relocate, why is no evidence being produced for that move? Equally, for an institution grounded in accountability and transparency, why is there no direct access for parliamentarians to question the ICO? I have to ask: why the secrecy?

Questions about the organisation’s operational moves are not limited to the office relocation. There have been growing concerns about financial stewardship. The ICO’s expenditure grew by 15% in 2023-24, and the organisation faced a deficit that was only recently alleviated by a change in fee structure. People had to pay more because the ICO was spending more—again, where is the accountability? Put together, these concerns paint a picture of a public body lacking clear financial constraint—or restraint—and public accountability.

Here lies a problem we see all too often in our political system: arm’s length bodies that receive significant sums of taxpayers’ money going without proper regulation or oversight. The ICO is just one of more than 300 arm’s length bodies in the UK, collectively employing around 397,000 staff. These organisations carry significant public responsibility and receive billions of pounds in taxpayer funding, yet they operate without adequate transparency and, unlike ministerial Departments, are not uniformly regulated.

The Public Bodies Act 2011 requires a management agreement between a body and its sponsoring Department, but the exact terms are left for them to decide. I understand that DSIT became the ICO’s sponsoring Department in 2023, and that a new management agreement is currently being finalised. Can the Minister provide an update on that process and confirm whether it will include stronger provisions for parliamentary scrutiny and public transparency?

The concerns I bring to the House are not complex ones about the move and accountability, nor are they unreasonable. The simple fact that these questions go unanswered undermines public trust in these organisations and brings into question the control and oversight of these bodies. Residents of Wilmslow and the ICO’s employees deserve to know this information and the reasons for the move.

We must not forget that, when decisions of this scale are made, they will not go unnoticed. It comes back to the very simple principles that the ICO was founded on and continues to serve: transparency, openness and upholding trust in our public institutions. It is not good enough merely to talk about those issues; they deserve decisive action.

I am putting all these questions on the record. I fully understand that the Minister might not be able to answer all of them today, and I will accept as many answers as he can give. But what I would appreciate—no, I will go further: what I expect following this debate is a letter with all those answers. I see the Minister’s civil servants seated behind him, so I should be assured that that can and will be delivered, as everyone who needs to be here for those answers is present.

Animal Experiments: Medical Research

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Monday 16th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Irene Campbell]

I agree with my hon. Friend. Moving towards animal-free research will take some time, which is why we refer to “phasing out”. The funding structures, particularly relating to academic research, have to shift. I thank her for her intervention.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady for securing this debate, and for leading the Petitions Committee debate in Westminster Hall this afternoon. I spoke to her beforehand. Does she recognise that there have been world-leading innovations in anti-tumour necrosis factor treatment for arthritis, and that has had a life-changing impact across the world on those with auto-immune diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis, multiple sclerosis, Crohn’s and colitis? That would not have been possible without limited research on animals. Research on animals must be considered as an option, given that people with those diseases now at least have the opportunity for a better life due to the medications perfected because of it.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Thursday 22nd May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant]

The UK is a creative content superpower and we should do nothing to undermine that. In my hon. Friend’s constituency, there is a famous gallery that produces blue plaques, which celebrate many of the creative industry heroes around the country—I launched the one for Cary Grant in Bristol not long ago. I am keen that we make sure that we protect those industries and enhance them for the future. She basically asked whether we could have a debate later today on the data Bill, and we are going to have one.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The creative industries in Wales are incredibly important, but it is also incredibly important to have creative industries everywhere in this United Kingdom. There is an opportunity for those in Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and England to have creative industry exchanges. Is that something that the Minister has considered, so that the benefits from Wales can come to Northern Ireland, Scotland and England and we can all gain?

[Mr Speaker]

Yes, very creative.

--- Later in debate ---

[Marsha De Cordova]

I reiterate that it is really important that Members, including my hon. Friend, continue to raise this issue and hold the Church to account. The Church is undertaking detailed work to look towards seeking to go with a fully independent model. In the meantime, the Church is getting on with setting up the external scrutiny body, which is likely to be on a statutory basis, in order to give it depth and may require legislation. As I have said on many occasions in Church Commissioners questions, it is so important that the Church seeks to restore and rebuild trust, and that begins with ensuring that we have a credible model for safeguarding.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Second Church Estates Commissioner for her response. The churches should always be a place for those who seek help, assistance, support and comfort whenever things have happened that are completely against the teachings of the Bible. For those who carry out these heinous crimes, there must be no excuses and no apologies; they must go to court to face the allegations that are made against them, and then when the crimes are proven, they must be sent to jail. The Church’s foundation is God and the teachings of the Bible. Those who carry out those crimes deserve absolutely no help within the Church whatsoever.

[Marsha De Cordova]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Justice must be served regardless of the institution a crime is committed in.

Broadband and Mobile Connectivity: Rural Areas

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 21st May 2025 Westminster Hall

[Anna Sabine (Frome and East Somerset) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered broadband and mobile connectivity in rural areas.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. I represent the fairly rural constituency of Frome and East Somerset. In February this year, I conducted a survey asking residents in villages such as Lamyatt, Doulting, Alhampton, West Pennard and Witham Friary about their experiences with mobile and broadband signal. The number of responses was overwhelming, and there was a striking consistency to what they told me. The current arrangements for getting a mobile or broadband signal are mismatched, too expensive, frequently slow and, in many cases, simply not fit for purpose.

Access to a reliable internet and mobile signal is now a basic necessity of our lives. Whether for work, education, healthcare or simply staying connected, people rely on broadband and mobile coverage every single day. I heard from a number of brilliant rural businesses—wedding venues, farms, ironmongers—who battle with poor connectivity daily. For many, broadband remains one of the biggest obstacles they face as a business, in terms of both the quality and speed of the connection available and the frustrating experience that creates for their customers. One local farm, for example, was quoted more than £250,000 by Openreach just to connect a wire across a relatively short distance to secure full-fibre broadband.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

We are all here for the same purpose: our constituencies do not have the 3G broadband that we all wish to see. Does the hon. Lady agree that Westminster and all the other regions of the United Kingdom—Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland—should collectively have a programme that delivers 3G broadband for everybody in this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?

[Anna Sabine]

I have met the Minister before, which I will come on to. I know there is a plan, about which I have some specific questions. I totally agree that this is a nationwide challenge. On mobile reception, I am particularly concerned about the elderly and vulnerable in the Government’s digital switchover. Many of those individuals still rely on landlines, not by choice but because mobile signal in their area is unreliable.

Future of Public Libraries

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 14th May 2025 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Thank you, Mr Dowd. I did not expect to be called this early, but it is always a pleasure to speak in a debate and to serve under your chairship.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire (Jonathan Davies) on setting the scene so well. Libraries are obviously vastly important to him, as they are to me, from a constituency point of view. He is right to highlight the importance of public libraries across the United Kingdom. I speak from some experience: I used to serve in the Northern Ireland Assembly on the Committee for Culture, Arts and Leisure, and part of that responsibility was for libraries in Northern Ireland, including libraries in my Strangford constituency. Public libraries are services that are much loved and must be protected, so it is great to be here to discuss them.

It is always good to see the Minister in his place. I look forward to his contribution and to hearing what the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr French), and the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for North Devon (Ian Roome), have to say about libraries.

My constituency has many wonderful libraries, including Newtownards library, which was recently refurbished; Killyleagh library, which has also been refurbished; and Ballynahinch library. Libraries are not just about books; they are also about events that can happen in them. They are always related to books, or along those lines, but they are available for different events. Last Friday there was a VE Day event at Killyleagh library, and it was a pleasure to be there. An author from Belfast spoke about his book on the Jewish people who came to Northern Ireland during the second world war. It was a lovely occasion. I think the ambience of the library added to the occasion. The subject matter was very pertinent to the area, because many Jewish people came to live in Killyleagh and their contribution to the society was incredible. I will remember that event on Friday for a long time.

In a world in which our phones and being online can dominate our time, it is fantastic that our community libraries can be upheld. Last year I was fortunate to be given some children’s books at an event here in Westminster. I met staff from the local library back home in Newtownards, and gave the books to the library so that they could in turn use them and give them to children.

The hunger and eagerness of children who read books encourages me greatly. I have six grandchildren. Every one of them, even the wee ones—the youngest are three and four—has devoured books. I was at an event downstairs in Parliament today about eating habits. It had nothing to do with this issue, but one of the things it was about was encouraging children to eat their greens. I am very fortunate because my last two grandchildren, the three-year-old and four-year-old, do not have to be encouraged to eat their greens, or to read books, but it is really important that we do that.

For young children, reading has so many benefits, including for cognitive brain development and enhancing language. I have been shocked in the past, when attending different libraries, by the sheer variety of literature offered. I do not think there is one individual who would struggle to find a book suited to them. In addition to reading, our libraries offer crucial services by providing access to computers and printing and serving as community hubs. There are knit and natter groups for the elderly: they come and do a bit of knitting and they natter for ages—well, they certainly did whenever I was there. Schools will often have libraries, but they also do visits to community libraries for talks and so on, or to meet the authors of popular books.

Libraries NI is fantastic in offering mobile libraries for rural villages that perhaps do not have decent access to library services. This gives constituents who are more isolated, and especially older people, an opportunity to get out and about and engage with others. In Northern Ireland, the arrival of a mobile library to homes across a rural constituency means a lot. Banks and retail shops have gone online and disappeared from the community, but libraries, including mobile libraries, are still there. I hope that our library services will not be left behind and that local libraries across the whole United Kingdom will continue to be funded so that they can remain open.

I will conclude, because I am conscious of the time and the five-minute limit. So many people of a wide variety of ages love and rely on our library services. We must protect libraries through additional funding and the encouragement of their use, so that more people apply for library cards and take advantage of these wonderful services. Our libraries are very much part of the community.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 14th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The Minister is right that such work is helping not just Hertfordshire but everywhere else. He has been a regular visitor to Northern Ireland and has taken a specific interest in cyber-security there. Has he had the opportunity to interact with companies in Northern Ireland to ensure that we can benefit from the expansion of the cyber-security industry?

[Peter Kyle]

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s recognition that I have a personal commitment to Northern Ireland, which I recently visited for the second time. This Government are committed to cyber-security right across the United Kingdom. The budgets for it and their application are subject to Barnett consequentials. I know that he will be working with the devolved Administration to ensure that that money is spent wisely, and in central Government they will have the partner they need.

United States Film Tariff

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 7th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

For the final episode, I call Jim Shannon.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Never the final episode—still a wee bit to go yet. I thank the Minister very much for his answers, and for the energy he displays on behalf of the sector. In a question in the Chamber yesterday to the Minister for Trade Policy and Economic Security, I highlighted the £330 million income for the film industry in Northern Ireland since 2018. The importance of USA films to that cannot be overstated; they include epics such as “Blade Runner”, to say nothing of “Game of Thrones” and “Star Wars”. So many films use our highly skilled studios and work, due to the cost-effectiveness of this option. The Trump tariffs will negate much of this benefit. I am quite confident of the Minister’s response, but how can he emphasise the need to give consideration to our film sector, which is an integral part of this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?

[Chris Bryant]

I thought the credits were already rolling, and then up comes the hon. Gentleman. It may be just that I am an optimistic person by nature, but I feel very optimistic about where all these negotiations will end up. I am hopeful that we will end up with some kind of deal. I also passionately believe that wherever that deal ends up, the UK film industry will succeed, because we have always been a great nation at telling stories that people want to watch all around the world. We have some of the greatest actors. We may be a small nation, but we manage to dominate on screens all around the world because we are just talented, and everybody will still want to keep on buying that talent, whatever the deal may be.

Neon Signage

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 6th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Yasmin Qureshi]

Absolutely, and I will go on to talk about the amount of work and experience that artists need to work with neon.

I recently visited Tony and Catherine at their studio and I was transported to a magical world of amazing colours. I saw the stunning artwork that they have produced and was given a demonstration of how they bend the glass to create their signs, which I managed to do as well. To watch them was truly fascinating, but this proud craft is under threat, not because we no longer appreciate its beauty, but because it is being quietly and insidiously eroded by misleading marketing and unfair competition from mass-produced light-emitting diode imitation products, often deliberately and incorrectly labelled as neon signs. Let me be clear: if it is not made of glass and filled with gas, it is not a neon sign.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The hon. Lady is putting forward an argument for the creative industries, but what the neon sign market has created cannot be ignored. I always do my studies before I come to the Chamber to take part in the Adjournment debate. MarketWatch predicts that the neon sign market will grow by 7.5% annually between 2024 and 2031, making some $3.3 billion by 2031. Is there not a way for the neon sign market and the creative sector to work together to the advantage of all?

[Yasmin Qureshi]

I thank the hon. Gentleman. I will touch on a few more things.

Authentic neon signs are handcrafted from glass tubes that are heated, bent and shaped by hand, then filled with inert gases, like neon or argon. It is a meticulous and time-consuming process requiring years of training, dexterity and experience. There are only 27 full-time neon glass benders left in the United Kingdom, down from hundreds in previous decades. It is a red-listed, endangered craft and, without action, it will be lost.

The problem we face is not just commercial, but cultural: it is about the loss of a craft that is as British as Harris tweed or Sheffield cutlery. In fact, like Harris tweed, we believe that neon signs deserve formal legal protection through a certification mark, a defined British standard or, ideally, the introduction of a neon signs protection Act. This is not an anti-technology argument. LED signage has its place—it is cheaper, mass-produced and useful in many applications—but to allow businesses to market LED signs as “neon” is misleading consumers, harming artisans and erasing our heritage.

Let me illustrate how this is affecting real businesses. Neon Creations has seen a sharp drop in demand because customers are being told by large retailers that £30 LED signs are neon signs. The products may look superficially similar, but they are entirely different in construction, quality and artistry. When customers receive them and discover that they are not authentic, they contact businesses like Neon Creations not to buy but to ask for repairs on something that is not actually neon. Catherine and Tony have faced online harassment and threats of legal action, and have had their comments blocked on social media for merely correcting the record. That is what comes to people when they tell truth to power.

Let us consider the facts. Neon is safe. Despite common misconceptions, neon signs are powered by low amperage and do not get dangerously hot. The gases used—neon and argon—are inert and naturally occurring in our atmosphere. Neon is efficient. A typical neon sign for business use costs around 21p per day to run, barely more than an LED and far less than people assume. Neon is sustainable—unlike plastic-heavy LED products, neon signs are made of glass and are fully recyclable. Perhaps most importantly, neon signs last much longer. They have a lifespan of at least 10 years, outpacing LED alternatives, so why are we allowing this confusion to persist? Why are we allowing misleading labels?

The British Sign and Graphics Association, the Heritage Crafts Association, the Federation of Small Businesses and the Greater Manchester chamber of commerce all support stronger protections for neon craftsmanship. This is not just about one constituency or one business; it is about defending the principle that authenticity matters, and that heritage crafts should be recognised, not undermined by the march of mass production. We must also address the issue of consumer transparency. It should not be acceptable for retailers, large or small, to market a product as neon when it contains no glass, no gas and no craftsmanship. We have rightly challenged fake olive oils and falsely labelled meat; we must apply the same standard in this case.

Harris tweed is protected by law, ensuring that only fabric hand-woven in the Outer Hebrides can bear that name. We propose a similar model for neon signs, which could take the form of a certification mark that can only be applied to genuine glass neon products; a formal British standard for neon signs, developed with input from the British Standards Institution and the BSGA; and maybe a private Member’s Bill, a neon signs protection Act, that would enshrine a legal definition of the term “neon”. These measures would not be burdensome, and they would not create red tape. They would simply be a way of telling the truth in advertising and providing a very important protection to a very small but significant industry.

Let us not forget the cultural value of neon. It is signage, but it is also art; it evokes memories of cinemas, diners, music venues and city skylines. It is a symbol of expression and identity, and to lose it would be to dim the vibrant glow of Britain’s creative past. Neon Creations and other similar businesses are trying to pass on their skills to the next generation, but they cannot, because there is not enough work to justify training new glass benders. As of now, there are no full-time neon trainees in the whole of the United Kingdom. If we do not act, the pipeline of skills will close forever. That is why I am in the Chamber today to advocate for that pipeline and the small businesses that refuse to give up on this craft.

I have written to the Secretary of State, urging the Government to support clear definitions and protections for neon signs. I know that the all-party parliamentary group for craft is supportive of that campaign and is looking into the next steps, but more needs to be done. Will we stand by and watch the lights go out on one of Britain’s most unique and visually iconic crafts, or will we act to ensure that when someone buys a neon sign in this country, they are buying the real thing? This campaign is not just about glowing tubes of gas; it is about truth, heritage and the people behind the glass—people such as Tony and Catherine Spink in Bolton. They are people whose livelihoods depend on honesty in our markets and fairness in our laws. Let us give them that protection. Let us light the way for the future of British neon, and let us ensure that the word “neon” once again stands for authenticity, artistry and excellence.

Parthenon Marbles: British Museum Act 1963

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 30th April 2025 Westminster Hall

[Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the Parthenon marbles and the British Museum Act 1963.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I declare at the outset that I am the chair of the all-party parliamentary group for Greece, and yesterday I attended a lunch with parliamentarians at the Greek embassy—I hasten to add that I paid for my lunch in advance at a cost of £35. I know that the Minister, who is my predecessor as Chair of the Committee on Standards, would welcome and expect nothing less than my making that declaration.

I welcome the Minister to his place, and I hope he is enjoying his role as what he and I once termed the “Minister for fun,” although I do not know how much fun he has been having over the last few months.

I am here today not for Greece but for my South Leicestershire constituents—who, like the constituents of many colleagues, are highly cultured people—and for all British people, who I think could benefit from a deal with Greece on the Parthenon marbles. The discussion about the Parthenon marbles, which reside in the British Museum, is very well known. I want to highlight at the outset that this is not a debate about the background to how the British Museum acquired these marbles, nor is it a debate about apportioning blame or arguing that the British Museum, its trustees or the British people have some form of moral responsibility to return these artefacts.

The sole and exclusive purpose of this debate is to put forward a proposition to benefit my South Leicestershire constituents and the constituents of all MPs across the United Kingdom, on whether a new and positive opportunity has presented itself to the United Kingdom, having left the European Union, to decide how it wishes to forge stronger relationships with each EU member state.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for bringing forward this debate. He is right to say that this is about not just his constituents but constituents across this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I want to read a quote from a report by the eminent historian and senior adviser to Policy Exchange, Sir Noel Malcolm. He found that:

“the claim that Elgin’s removal of the sculptures was illegal is false; the claim that his actions were invalidated by coercive bribery is false; the claim that he acted against the clear wishes of the Greek community is certainly unproven and probably false; the claim that his actions saved the Marbles from an ongoing process of serious damage, dispersal and destruction is certainly true.”

That should be the Government’s clear and unequivocal position.

Intellectual Property: Artificial Intelligence

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd April 2025 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Bury North (Mr Frith) on setting the scene so very well.

I believe that we sit at the crossroads of cutting-edge technology and the legal frameworks that govern creativity with the different ways in which artificial intelligence impacts on intellectual property rights. In the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, we can boast a historically strong and thriving culture of creativity across a very broad spectrum of the arts, science and technology. It is very important that we consider this issue.

Advancements in AI raise important questions about the protection of intellectual property, because who owns the output of an AI system? Is it the user, the developer, or the AI proprietor? Such questions inspire debate in boardrooms, courtrooms and centres of policymaking across the United Kingdom. In 2020, a UK-based artist used an AI tool to create a series of digital paintings that drew significant attention at a London gallery. The question that arose was this: who owns the copyright? The artist who used the AI technology, the developer of the AI system, or no one at all?

The current law, section 9(3) of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, states:

“In the case of a…work which is computer-generated, the author shall be taken to be the person by whom the arrangements necessary for the creation of the work are undertaken.”

The problem with that, of course, is that it was written decades ago, before such technology as AI was even thought about. The challenge is when we address the nuances of today’s AI systems, where creativity is often a joint effort of human input and machine output.

The outcome of the consultation is important, because it will shape the creative industries for years to come. As the UK is a global hub for technology and law, with institutions such as the Intellectual Property Office and a thriving creative economy, it can set the precedent for how AI and intellectual property can co-exist. I believe that the first step must be legal clarity; we should revisit the 1988 Act specifically to address AI-generated works and conventions by creating a new category that pertains to AI-assisted intellectual property, with its own rules, including on ownership. We should also invest in education to empower creators and businesses to navigate the evolving intellectual property landscape. Finally, we need to balance innovation with fairness. As AI reshapes the landscape, we must ensure that the benefits of AI-driven innovation are shared in a way that is equitable and that does not place a monopoly of power in the hands of an elite few or restrict raw human integrity.

We should embrace this moment as an opportunity to redefine intellectual property for the age of AI and a future where technology and human enterprise work hand in hand to create a more resourceful and ambitious society. The time to start doing that is this day and in this debate.