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?

Child Poverty

Lord John of Southwark Excerpts

Thursday 18th June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord John of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, I add my name to the list of those commending my noble friend Lady Lister on bringing this debate? I also welcome the contribution of the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, because the nature of the issue of child poverty is such that we should be striving for cross-party consensus on it. It is in our national interest. I have said before in a debate in this House that a Labour Government are about nothing if they are not about tackling child poverty. So it is welcome to be able to reflect again on what the Government have achieved so far and to think about what else needs to be done.

It is important to acknowledge, as the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, mentioned at the outset, that, for the first time since 2010, we have a child poverty strategy, which has at its heart the three pillars of boosting family incomes, driving down the cost of essentials and increasing local support. While it does not solve all problems, I was pleased to support the ending of the two-child benefit cap, which came into effect in April. It is a singularly significant measure, which will help us reach that target of lifting over 500,000 children out of poverty. In fact, there is an impressive list of measures, from raising the national minimum wage to the introduction of school breakfast clubs and extending free school meals, which will all play a part in the mission of reducing the inequalities caused by poverty.

I want to mention the Milburn review on young people and work, as the recommendations from that review will massively improve the life chances and outcomes for young people who otherwise risk being left behind.

When we last debated child poverty in the context of lifting the benefits cap, I spoke about two policies that we introduced in Southwark: universal, free healthy school meals for all primary school children, initially as a response to childhood obesity—my noble friend Lord Brooke should note—and free swimming pool and gym use for all residents. Both of those were specifically aimed at breaking down barriers and ensuring that young people have the best start in life.

I also mention, by way of our greatest hits, our Southwark scholarship programme, which each year paid the tuition fees of a dozen academically gifted young people from low-income households, and the Nest, our mental health hub for children and young people, which aimed to ensure that 100% of those who needed mental health support received it in a timely manner—against the then Government’s target of 35%.

All these policies, in their own way, were aimed at reducing inequality and ensuring that a child’s background or poverty did not determine their path in life. But the reality is that these programmes are possible only because of the economic growth that Southwark achieved over that period, which meant that, although we were losing central government funding, we boosted our income by over £500 million over 10 years, through increased council tax and business rates, the new homes bonus and Section 106 contributions, not to mention the 46,000 more Southwark residents who found work. We all know that the greatest measure that any Government can take to tackle poverty and reduce the problems that accompany it is helping people into work. It is the easiest solution, but the greatest challenge.

Above all other measures and actions that this Government take during this Parliament to tackle child poverty, however, I urge them to place economic growth as the absolutely central mission—

[Noble Lords]

Hear, hear!

[Lord John of Southwark (Lab)]

Sorry, I was not expecting that cheer.

We have spoken about it over the past two years, and we have seen some modest growth, but we have to be honest that it is not enough. We must show renewed urgency in demonstrating that the UK is open for business and is the genuine incubator for growth. If we can do that, we can be confident that this Labour Government are the Government who will end the scourge of child poverty, perhaps for a generation and beyond.

Ballet

Lord John of Southwark Excerpts

Tuesday 28th April 2026 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord John of Southwark]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to provide further support to those institutions which provide classical ballet training at degree level.

[Lord John of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, in begging leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, I declare an interest as a member of the president’s circle of the Central School of Ballet.

[The Minister of State, Department for Education and Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)]

My Lords, the Government recognise the important contribution of the performing arts, including classical ballet. We continue to support degree-level provision of these subjects through the student finance system and though direct funding for providers via the strategic priorities grant. That includes per-student funding for performing arts courses, the rates for which were maintained this academic year, and direct funding of £57.4 million for 20 world-leading specialist providers, including 12 creative and performing arts institutions.

[Lord John of Southwark (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for her Answer. Whatever Timothée Chalamet may say, people care about ballet. The Central School of Ballet, almost uniquely as a degree-awarding classical ballet school, has faced financial uncertainty in recent years, with funding regimes changed and the gap between tuition fees of £9,250 and the costs of £24,000 per student causing real stress. The school awaits the delayed consultation on the strategic priorities grant this autumn, but is concerned that it may not know until well into 2027 what the new funding landscape will look like for 2027-28. Can my noble friend give any reassurance that there will be a prompt response to the consultation and that funding will more closely reflect the costs of specialist providers such as the Central School of Ballet? Can I invite her to visit the school to see the exceptional work of the students and staff there?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I know that my noble friend, as he has already identified, is a very strong supporter of the Central School of Ballet and the excellent work that it clearly does. The Government recognise the valuable contribution made by the Central School of Ballet, which is why it has benefited from £2.2 million in specialist funding from 2022 to the current academic year. I also recognise the point made by my noble friend about the need for certainty. We remain committed to ensuring that SPG funding supports students and aligns with the industrial strategy, including the creative and performing arts. Reform of the SPG is ongoing ahead of 2027-28, including on specialist funding, but we will ensure that there is an opportunity for providers to feed back on our proposals for reform.

Universal Credit (Removal of Two Child Limit) Bill

Lord John of Southwark Excerpts

2nd reading & Committee negatived & 3rd reading
Thursday 12th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord John of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, as an old-timer in this place, I congratulate my noble friends Lady Antrobus and Lord Walker, and the noble Baroness, Lady Teather, on their brilliant, inspiring and moving maiden speeches.

A Labour Government are about nothing if they are not about reducing poverty and inequality in our society: breaking down the barriers that separate rich and poor and opening opportunities to all, whatever our background. That is why I am so pleased to be speaking in this debate and in support of the Bill, which sees the Labour Government removing the two-child limit on universal credit. I am pleased that it is just one part of the Government’s comprehensive child poverty strategy, which aims to lift 550,000 children out of poverty by the end of this Parliament.

The noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, said there was a fundamental question in this debate. I say the fundamental question is why we have so many children living in poverty in this country. It is shocking that in 2026, in the world’s sixth-largest economy, around 4.5 million children live in relative poverty. It is even more shocking to consider than in 2010, at the time of the last Labour Government, that number was 2.3 million, having fallen from 4 million in 1997—figures I took from a paper prepared by the noble Baroness, Lady Teather. Our own national history shows us that child poverty can be tackled in a meaningful way if the Government of the day are willing to act. Those who oppose the Bill today are on the wrong side of history.

However, even if the Government’s objectives in this Bill and other measures are achieved, we must acknowledge that we will still have a long way to go. The scale of the challenge now makes the task of acting all the more urgent and necessary. A family of four, two adults and two children, living in relative poverty, is, according to statistics I have read, getting by on no more than about £400 a week. That is £400 to pay for heating, electricity, travel, food, clothing and all the costs that any family incurs before you consider anything that might be considered a treat. I need hardly remind noble Lords that that is a figure which is little more than the daily allowance which each one of us is entitled to receive for one day in this House. As others have said, we know that the costs of child poverty do not end when a child reaches the age of 18. They can blight an entire life, with a child growing up likely to earn less, work less and suffer greater ill-health if their life started in poverty.

When I was a local authority leader, I introduced two measures in particular aimed at tackling child poverty and the barriers to health for young people: free healthy school meals for all primary school children and free swim-and-gym use for all residents. As well as giving that hand-up to young people in my borough, we sought to grow our economy to lift even more people out of poverty. That is also the mission of this Labour Government. Today, though, we are talking about that all-important task that government at all levels faces of putting a supportive arm around those most in need. The people this Bill will help are those who need that supportive arm. They are not the feckless or work-shy, as some might claim. As we have heard, 60% of those families who will be supported are already in work, but just struggling to get by.

As the third child in my family, I am not sure how I would have felt if I had known that the state and the Government did not value me in the same way as my siblings; but this is the position we have put too many children in over the last decade. We live in challenging and uncertain times, particularly for children and young people who see a future marked by increased costs for educational opportunities and a significantly changing work environment with the revolution of AI—before we even get to thinking about their security at home and in this country. The mark of any society must be the way in which it looks after its most vulnerable. We rightly protect our older residents. At the moment, we protect some children, but now is the time for us to show that we care about every child who lives in poverty.