Creative Industries: Qualifications

Lord Isaac Excerpts

Thursday 23rd July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Isaac (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Keeley for initiating this important debate on the future of post-16 creative education, an area that is often neglected when we focus on universities —it is the Cinderella sector, as many have noted. I declare an interest as the chair of governors of the University of the Arts London, which, as the House will have heard, runs the awarding body for the current diploma and extended diploma system.

As noble Lords have heard today, the arts are central to our cultural life. I have spoken about that many times in this Chamber. They are central to our economy, to social mobility and to the general well-being of society. As we have heard, they foster imagination, collaboration and, most importantly, innovation. That is why the Government have rightly identified the creative industries as one of the eight priority growth sectors in their industrial strategy. However, since 2010, the number of pupils taking GCSE creative subjects—as we just heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett—has fallen by 40%, and the number of specialist arts teachers in state schools has fallen dramatically too. It is therefore vital that post-16 education provides strong pathways into employment, and further and higher education, for the diminishing number of students who wish to develop their creative skills.

This debate is not about undermining apprenticeships, T-levels, V-levels or A-levels. It is about ensuring that, in simplifying post-16 qualifications, we do not damage the established creative pathways that already serve students and employers well. Creative level 3 courses, as we have heard, must be broad, practical and portfolio based. They must allow time for experimentation, rehearsal and studio practice. They are essential to developing successful artists, designers, performers, filmmakers and media professionals—the names that we have heard this afternoon: Steve McQueen and Adele, as well as Tracey Emin and Grayson Perry.

We also need the creative industries to draw on talent from every background. Existing qualifications provide opportunities for disadvantaged students, young people with SEND and those at risk of becoming NEET. Together with A-levels and foundation courses, they are important routes into the workplace and higher education. In 2023, 96% of applicants holding the UAL level 3 extended diploma received a higher education offer, and I am delighted that 85% of those offered them accepted places. I fear that the new arrangements mean that fewer creative students will qualify for university or be able to develop the skills that employers need. The UCAS tariff for T-levels means that students must achieve a distinction to secure the points that many extended diploma students routinely attain. Some universities, as I understand it, are already declining to accept T-levels for certain creative degree courses.

There are also questions about capacity and scalability. This year, only 814 students started one of the two creative T-levels, compared with 84,000 studying level 3 creative diplomas and extended diplomas. How will we address those scalability challenges? I would be happy to explore that with the Minister and her colleagues. Colleges are also saying that current T-levels are too narrow and do not replace existing qualifications. Exeter College is a case in point. The college tells us that T-levels and extended diplomas are both on offer to their students but that the creative media course as a T-level lacks artistic context and focuses only on technical skills. We also know that the Becky Francis review recognised that, as currently anticipated, creative V-levels will not fill that gap and are too narrowly defined.

Until T-levels and V-levels can demonstrate the same breadth of learning, progression and outcomes as current creative qualifications, there is a compelling case for retaining successful level 3 creative diplomas. Without that safeguard, I fear these reforms risk narrowing opportunities for the next generation of creative talent. Our young people, our creative industries and our country deserve better.

Higher Education: Affordability and Quality

Lord Isaac Excerpts

Thursday 2nd July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Isaac (Lab)]

My Lords, it is an honour to follow the noble Lord, Lord Tarassenko, and to see Oxford so well represented in this afternoon’s debate. With that in mind, I declare interests as provost of Worcester College in Oxford, but also as the chair of governors of the University of the Arts in London.

As has been widely acknowledged in the debate this afternoon, our universities are among the finest in the world. They generate world-leading research, attract international talent and contribute billions of pounds each year to our economy. Yet I think it is no understatement to say that the higher education sector is in crisis. Higher education should be an opportunity for all, not a financial burden that deters talented students from fulfilling their potential. I was fortunate to be the first in my family to go to university. I was supported by a student grant and I was able to graduate, believe it or not, without any debt. Times have changed, but I would like as many young people from similar backgrounds to enjoy the same good fortune.

Tuition fees have undoubtedly provided universities with a stable income, but rising living costs and concerns about debt are discouraging many able students from applying. It is therefore welcome that the Government have announced the return of maintenance grants for lower-income students. However, these are currently linked only to priority courses. My preference would be that such courses were defined more broadly, so that students from lower-income families have the same freedom of choice as their more affluent or more economically confident peers.

Of course, universities themselves, as we have heard this afternoon, face mounting pressures. Even with recent fee increases, we now know that four in 10 institutions are expected to be in deficit by the end of this year. Student numbers are falling, while heavy reliance on international students leaves the sector vulnerable to geopolitical uncertainty. I also fear that the new international student levy raises the risk that many international students are less attracted to studying in the UK, because inevitably—I speak as part of a governing body that has to assess the cost of international fees—we may well be passing these additional costs on to our students. Cuts and delays to the strategic priorities grant, together with the loss of world-leading specialist funding, add further pressures.

Quality must never become the casualty of financial constraint, and we must continue to invest in excellent teaching and research, including, as I wish to stress this afternoon, in the humanities. The recently announced deep cuts in the humanities at Exeter University remind us just how fragile these disciplines have become. I agree that, to deliver on these ambitions, universities must embrace new forms of collaboration, share resources more effectively and, as we have heard, make full use of digital technologies and AI. All this must, I suggest, lead to an improvement in teaching and will drive innovation.

Finally, I turn to creative education, which the noble Baroness mentioned in her speech. As I have said in this House before, the creative industries are one of Britain’s greatest success stories. They contributed nearly £150 billion to our economy last year, yet creative courses remain extremely vulnerable, because they are more expensive to deliver and ever fewer students are attracted to them. These courses must not become the preserve of only those who can afford them or who are prepared to take on debt. If they do, we risk denying future generations of David Hockneys, Tracey Emins and Alexander McQueens. Changes to the pre-degree courses imperil people just like them. We need a pipeline of people moving from further education to higher education and endorsing their preference for the creative industries. Creative education is the pipeline for one of the UK’s most successful industries, and its value, I suggest, cannot be judged solely by graduate earnings. These disciplines enrich our culture, strengthen our international reputation and contribute significantly to economic growth.

Our universities must remain accessible to all. They must offer the widest range of disciplines and be financially sustainable. The future prosperity of our country depends on it.

School Admissions: Selective Inclusion

Lord Isaac Excerpts

Monday 8th June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I welcome the noble Baroness to her new role, and I am looking forward to working with her. The answer to ensuring that parents have the choice they want and deserve is to enable all schools to be the type of good schools that any of us who have or have had children would want our children to go to. That means ensuring that we have more teachers in our schools, which we are focused on; ensuring that all schools follow a revised national curriculum; and investing properly in them. These are all things that this Government have focused on, and we will continue to do so to ensure that every parent has the choice of a good school for their child.

[Lord Isaac (Lab)]

My Lords, it is excellent to hear the Minister identify that there will be more resources to reduce the barriers for children with SEND. But in the Sutton Trust report there were specific recommendations to increase the number of teaching assistants and to promote a fair access review. Will she give us some reassurance that that is part of what the Government are considering?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

As well as the investment we are putting in, particularly for children with special educational needs and disabilities, we will consult on changes to the School Admissions Code to support fairness for all families, particularly the most disadvantaged. That will include improvements to how fair access protocols are managed by local authorities, requiring schools to give parents more information about decisions on in-year admission and, where they operate, making the operation of banding arrangements clear. Certainly, the first two of those will be very important for supporting parents in thinking about children with special educational needs and disabilities, and enabling them to get into the good schools that they would choose for them.