Neon Signage

Debate between Nusrat Ghani and Yasmin Qureshi

Tuesday 6th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[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.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

That was an absolutely fascinating speech. I look forward to the response from the Minister.

Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency

Debate between Nusrat Ghani and Yasmin Qureshi

Thursday 16th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South and Walkden) (Lab)]

My interest in this matter arises as I chair the APPG on Primodos, and it is a campaign that I and many other MPs have been working on for the past 12 years. On one occasion, after a big debate, the Minister ordered an expert working group to be set up. The MHRA was supposed to examine the evidence. We the campaigners and Members of Parliament thought that all the documents we had would be looked at by the MHRA, but clearly it did not look at them. The MHRA was supposed to engage with the victims and their families, but they were not spoken to or dealt with properly, and there was no thorough examination.

In fact, some of the members of the expert working group, which was set up by the Commission on Human Medicines, had connections with pharmaceutical companies. We wanted the MHRA to look at the documents, which showed very clearly that in the 1970s it was accepted by the then Committee on Safety of Medicines that this drug was causing deformities. However, the chief medical officer at the time colluded with the manufacturer, destroyed the evidence and refused to help.

We have documents that show that the manufacturer knew there was a cover-up, and yet the MHRA refused to look at them. Subsequently, Professor Carl Heneghan from Oxford University looked at the same material the EWG had looked at and came to a completely different conclusion: he said the evidence showed that there was a connection. The EWG was asked to look at whether there was a causal connection, and it changed its recommendation again. The former Prime Minister, Mrs May, was also not convinced by the expert working group. We persuaded her to set up a review chaired by Baroness Cumberlege, who said there was avoidable harm and that the victims should be compensated.

Throughout all those years, the Government of the day did not want to communicate with us, and they have not been dealing with this issue properly. They have always relied on the expert working group’s report, which has held the victims back and held us back from pursuing a possible legal claim. We say to the Government now that the EWG report needs to be relooked at, and Professor Carl Heneghan’s study of it should also be looked at. Scientific evidence has been produced using an experiment on zebrafish which shows that there is a link with this drug, and we have sent this to the Commission on Human Medicines for the Department to look at.

We must remember that this drug is 40 times the strength of the morning after pill. Women were given this pill and told it had no effect other than to see whether they were pregnant, and it then caused this damage. I ask the Minister today, with the new Government now in place, to please relook at this; the report by the EWG, which was set up by the MHRA, has been discredited, so please stop listening to it.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

Prisons

Debate between Nusrat Ghani and Yasmin Qureshi

Wednesday 25th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Yasmin Qureshi]

The Labour party also introduced IPP sentences, and I was not one of those who favoured that provision. I will touch on its impact on our prison system. The Secretary of State spoke about the fact that the Government are trying to deal with the issues caused by the remnants of the IPP regime. One problem is that people who have served their IPP sentence cannot get out of prison until they have done specific, designated training courses, but unfortunately there has been a lack of funding for those courses. The Government have to take responsibility for the fact that many thousands of people in that position have not been released from prison.

As I have said, this has been a very good and interesting debate. Many experienced people have spoken, including former Ministers and Secretaries of State. I think we can all agree that everyone is concerned about this issue. It is not a big vote winner or an issue that is often spoken about on the doorstep, but it is important because it shows what we stand for as a society. The one thing on which most people agree is that we have got problems, and there is a crisis in our prison system.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson), a former Minister, talked about some of the proposals in the White Paper that the Government have brought forward to deal with this issue. He set out all the shortcomings and all the questions that have not been answered. The White Paper seems to suggest that each prison will be run by its governor and then every problem will somehow be resolved. However, it does not provide answers to questions such as whether governors will have complete autonomy from the centre, and whether they will have enough money to be able to carry out everything they want to do. For example, if a prison governor thinks that 500 inmates require a two-month detoxification and rehabilitation programme, will he or she have the money to carry that out? It is all very well to say that governors can do such things, but where will the funding come from, or will they have an unlimited pot of money? How will people be recruited, and to whom will they be answerable? The White Paper raises a lot of questions that have not been answered, and it does not deal with the problems.

[Nusrat Ghani]

The hon. Lady has raised a number of issues, but we have yet to hear the Labour party’s solutions. Does she agree with Shami Chakrabarti, the shadow Attorney General, that half of all prisoners should be released immediately? Is that the policy of the Labour party?

[Yasmin Qureshi]

If the hon. Lady had been in the Chamber at the beginning of the debate, she would know that that question was asked by another Member; I think it was the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies). On the first point, you are the Government—[Interruption]—and it is for you to deal with the crisis of the—[Interruption.]