Why Parliament Debated The Glow

Parliament is not usually the stage for design debates. Tax and trade dominate the agenda. Yet in May 2025, MPs were talking about light. Ms Qureshi, brought heritage into the chamber. Her message was uncompromising: hand-bent glass filled with noble gas is artistry. She contrasted it with cheap LED substitutes, saying they undermine public trust. Only gas-filled tubes deserve the title. Chris McDonald added his support, speaking of local artists.

The benches responded warmly. Numbers framed the urgency. From hundreds, the number has fallen to a few dozen. The pipeline of skills has closed. Without action, Britain could lose neon entirely. The Commons considered safeguarding, modelled on Champagne. Protect the name. Even the DUP weighed in, bringing a commercial lens. Reports show 7.5% annual growth. His point: this is not nostalgia but business. Chris Bryant concluded the session.

He teased the chamber with jokes, drawing laughter. Yet beyond the humour, he admitted neon’s value. He cited neon’s cultural impact: Piccadilly Circus billboards. He suggested neon is unfairly judged on eco terms. Where lies the problem? The issue is clarity. Craft is undermined. That diminishes value. It is no different to whisky or Champagne. If Scotch must come from Scotland, then craft deserves recognition. The debate mattered beyond signage.

Do we accept homogenised plastic across every street? At Smithers, the stance is firm: real neon matters. The Commons was illuminated. No law has passed yet. But the campaign is alive. If Westminster can defend glow, so can we all. Skip LED pretenders. Keep the glow alive.


If you liked this article and you would like to acquire additional information with regards to light art for interiors kindly check out the web site.