Creative Industries: Qualifications

Lord John of Southwark Excerpts

Thursday 23rd July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord John of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lady Keeley on securing this important debate. I know from many conversations with her that she is utterly passionate about support for education in the creative industries and that she brings real expertise to this subject. I have enjoyed this debate so far, because I also discovered that a friend of mine was Oliver when, in the same production, my noble friend Lord Knight was the Artful Dodger. Who knew?

I have spoken before in the House about my support for centres of artistic excellence in south London—in particular, Mountview theatre school, the Central School of Ballet and the Old Vic Theatre. I declare my interests as a member of the president’s circle at the Central Ballet School and a trustee at the Old Vic. I thank my noble friend the Minister for the wonderful visit that we paid to the Central Ballet School a few weeks ago, when we both saw brilliant classical ballet teaching in action. We did not dance; we saw the students.

While Central Ballet School is not a level 3 provider, I think our conversation that day underlined the thrust of this debate: every cultural education provider, usually because of its size and specialism, is unique in the teaching and courses it provides; consequently, so are the financial challenges it faces. But one size rarely fits all in the cultural sector, especially in teaching and qualifications. At Mountview, students who do not have level 3 qualifications can enrol for foundation or Certificate of Higher Education courses. They are intensive, they are popular and they work, meeting the needs of students who then move on to degree courses.

We all know the importance of the cultural industries to the UK economy. Last year, they contributed more than £145 billion in gross value added, and they are growing at an incredible rate of nearly 5% a year—if only the rest of the economy was matching that growth. This is especially true in London. Only today, the Times reported:

“The capital’s cultural pull is increasingly visible in the booming film and television industry. Netflix, Amazon Prime Video and Disney are expanding their British operations, while Pinewood and Shinfield Studios are operating at capacity. Film London estimates that £9.5 billion will be invested in production across the wider capital area in the next five years”.


Citing the Hollywood Reporter, the article said that

“London has become ‘more Hollywood than Hollywood’, driven by generous tax incentives, premier infrastructure and”—

here is the important point—

“a deep pool of creative talent”.

This is all great news, but it makes it even more important that our approach to future creative talent is not undermined by complacency.

So we need to listen to the University of the Arts, as my noble friend Lord Isaac said, and the BRIT School, which said that

“large vocational qualifications do not narrow opportunity but, instead, unlock multiple successful pathways, including higher education, further training and employment”.

To paraphrase: leave it alone—it works. As others have observed, courses that open doors by their flexibility and inclusion increase social mobility.

This Government and this House have many Members with a deep-rooted commitment to and love of the arts and culture, so I hope that my noble friend the Minister is able to give us some cause for optimism today. This is a week of hope and change. I hope that there will be a change in the Government’s approach to this subject, and I ask my noble friend the Minister quite simply: will this debate have an impact?