That this House takes note of the role of the current level 3 qualifications for the creative industries, and of the potential impact of their replacement with T Levels and V Levels on the creative industries.
My Lords, I am pleased to open this debate on the important role of current level 3 qualifications for the creative industries and the potential impact of their replacement with T-levels and V-levels. While this debate affects the wider creative industries, I will focus on music education and the BRIT School as case studies to draw out the current strengths and some of the risks of the Government’s reform proposals. I thank UK Music and the Musicians’ Union for their support with a briefing for this debate, and the BRIT School, the University of the Arts London, Rockschool/RSL Awards, the ISM and the BPI for briefings.
At its heart, this debate is about whether replacing large numbers of existing level 3 qualifications, such as extended diplomas and BTEC nationals, will improve quality and clarity or will reduce choice for learners and remove programme pathways that currently enable many young people to succeed.
This issue has been a source of concern across the creative sector and among awarding bodies, including the University of the Arts London, since the reforms to post-16 education were first proposed by the Conservative Government in 2019. Those reforms sought to simplify level 3 qualifications around A-levels and T-levels, while removing public funding from qualifications deemed to overlap with them. However, campaigners argued that this risked removing successful applied qualifications which served different learners and different purposes.
It was therefore right that the Labour Government reviewed those reforms in 2024. My noble friend the Minister, writing about that review in FE Week in September 2024, stated:
“Where the review identifies the balance of learner and employer needs within a sector requires level 3 qualifications other than T-levels and A-levels, we will maintain the relevant qualifications. This may well be in areas that overlap with T-levels, which is a change from the approach”
My Lords, I am grateful to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Keeley, so early in this debate, and I thank her for securing this subject for us to discuss. I echo much of what she said, which I will return to in a moment.
I congratulate the Minister on surviving the reshuffle cull. I have seen on social media how pleased she is to have held on to her role and how much she enjoys it. In principle, it is great to see her on the Front Bench because the future success of our creative industries, led by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, depends very much on close co-operation with the Department for Education. It is an interesting point that the music education system that the noble Baroness, Lady Keeley, spoke of so eloquently is effectively funded out of the Department for Education via the Arts Council. Many of the high-level schemes that support elite arts education—I am not embarrassed to use the word “elite”—such as the music and dance scheme, are also funded by the department of the noble Baroness, Lady Smith. It is vital to see this co-operation.
Although the noble Lord, Lord Gove, is often criticised for the EBacc, it was thanks to him, when he was Education Secretary, that we were able to bring some form of strategy to music education, with the creation of music education hubs, a more uniform funding system for local authorities and a joining up of separate initiatives, such as the In Harmony scheme, to ensure their success.
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Keeley, for initiating this debate. I should also like to give a shout out to level 1 and level 2 qualifications, because level 1 may go to an adult who has never gained a national qualification, and the boost to confidence around learning and the sense of achievement can be life-changing. Level 1 may well lead to someone going on to level 2 and even level 3—someone who had written themselves off as dim and useless until national recognition, even at a lowly level, encouraged and incentivised them. Level 3 is evidence of someone who has the skills and knowledge to operate on their own in their chosen field.
Creative skills used to be validated and awarded by City & Guilds, where I worked for 20 years, initially on hairdressing, wig-making and beauty therapy—one can be quite versatile in this life, I find—and allied skills. In all those areas, it was possible to go all the way to fellowship at level 7. I then moved on to look after the senior awards, levels 4 to 7, with post-nominal letters and gowns and hoods to indicate their parity with university degrees.
Sadly, City & Guilds was betrayed by the then chairman, chief executive and finance officer, who managed to bypass the trustees, council and president—the Princess Royal—of this long-standing royal charter charity founded by the City of London and livery companies in 1878 and highly regarded around the world for the quality and standards of its work-based qualifications. They sold the awarding part to a foreign-owned commercial company, PeopleCert. A small team has been left under the title of the City & Guilds Foundation to continue to support the charitable activities and sustain the royal charter. Two of the three perpetrators were given lucrative welcomes and subsequently sacked. How strange life can be. Anyway, the Charity Commission is investigating how this could happen, as is a growing band of staff, members, fellows and friends of the institute, but what is crucial is that candidates do not suffer for this. The qualifications that they are working for will continue to be delivered, because they do not deserve to be deflected by the machinations of people who should have known better. We have been assured that this will be the case and that the qualifications will continue to be to the highest standard, as they always were.
My Lords, I remind the House of my education interests, in particular as a member of Pearson’s qualifications committee. It is always a joy to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Garden, and I, too, pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Keeley, for securing and introducing this debate. I add that I am delighted that the Minister is still in her place after the reshuffle.
My first job, at 13, was in the West End production of “Oliver!”. Seven years later, I co-founded a theatre company with Sam Mendes and went on to manage arts centres. My wife, after drama school, spent years delivering Creative Partnerships in schools. My daughter Ruth is now a successful opera director. All three of us have done well thanks to the vocational pull of the performing arts. But this is an industry that cannot be measured by productivity and earnings at 30; it is about vocation and about weaving the cultural fabric that binds us together—witness the connection between fans and players created by “Wonderwall” at the World Cup.
I want to focus today on why T-levels and V-levels, as designed, cannot deliver the talent that our nation needs to maintain our status as a creative superpower. I am a keen supporter of the post-16 reforms in general but not as currently applied to this sector. T-levels and the proposed V-levels are built on national occupational standards—competencies mapped to defined jobs. How will that work for creative artists?
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Keeley for introducing this debate in such a thoughtful and compelling way. I am delighted to follow my noble friend Lord Knight.
This House has many times focused on the importance of the creative industries to the economy and our social fabric. It cannot be emphasised enough how much creators enhance our reputation and soft power across the world, and our productivity at home in theatre, film, dance, music, computer games, craft, design, visual arts—indeed, any area in which individual creativity, skill and talent play a key role. Those who are able and willing to advance those skills need to be encouraged, supported and given freedom to fly, not thwarted, straitjacketed or discouraged by any entry system of examinations which is not targeted to their needs or the industries they aspire to enter.
Others in this debate have real knowledge of the requirements for entering these subjects and the impact of the specific changes currently being considered, as we have already heard. I do not, but I have learnt a lot. The Library brief was excellent, and I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Keeley for a thorough grounding in the ongoing discussions with the Government and their intentions.
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Keeley, for securing this very well patronised debate, our last debate before Recess. It was pointed out in the last debate that I am taking part in all three debates today, and one of the advantages of that is that you can make links between them. So, I want to link the first debate, in which the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, talked about digital sovereignty and linked it to constitutional weaknesses in the UK, to this debate, and point out how constitutional weaknesses are affecting creative education, the subject we are discussing here.
The first past the post electoral system has traditionally produced a see-saw between two parties and two sets of policies and plans, if not always with much ideological difference. Creative education has been very much a victim of this see-saw. We saw the noble Lord, Lord Gove—now a Member of your Lordships’ House—make an active attempt under the previous Administrations to suppress creative subjects in schools with the EBacc, to push for a focus on a handful of subjects and exam results. That saw many creative subject teachers leave education—certainly leave schools—and move on to other careers, and active discouragement of new teachers coming into the area. I note that among many others, the composer Andrew Lloyd Webber, referring to music education, has focused on the chronic shortage of teachers, as the noble Baroness, Lady Keeley, referred to.
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.
My Lords, I warmly thank my noble friend Lady Keeley for securing this debate and warmly welcome my noble friend the Minister back to her place.
To add to the statistics, Skills England estimates that the creative industries will need to fill around 1 million vacancies by 2035, a significant increase. Crucially, 82% of those roles will require qualifications at level 4 and above, compared with an economy-wide average of 62%. That means that occupational standards exist, where they do, largely at level 4, not level 3, which is the basis for the T-levels that are under discussion. Some 90% of creative businesses are micro-enterprises, as we have heard, employing fewer than 10 people. More than 30% of the workforce is freelance, but that critically increases in some key subsectors such as film and television, where it is over 50%.
For many years, the Department for Education has tended towards one-size-fits-all policies, designed around larger employers and more traditional sectors. Creative industries have repeatedly been recognised as atypical, yet the flexibilities needed to support them have too often been absent. As a result, employers have frequently developed their own solutions. When the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education mapped the creative and design pathways a few years ago, it concluded that T-levels were not the right qualifications for music, performing arts or graphic design. Two technical T-levels were introduced, craft and design—as my noble friend Lord Knight mentioned—and broadcast media production, with 678 students over two years now studying it.
4:28 pm
20 of 41 shown
of the previous Government. For creative subjects, and music in particular, that principle is essential. However, in October 2025, the Government’s White Paper on post-16 education proposed the introduction of V-levels and T-levels to replace many existing qualifications. I feel it is important that in this debate we consider the potential implications for the creative industries before any more work is done to make changes.
The UK music industry is one of our great success stories. It generates £8 billion a year for the economy, supports 220,000 jobs across the country and projects British culture around the world. Yet every performer, producer, composer, sound engineer, technician and educator begins somewhere. If we weaken the educational pathways into music, we weaken the future workforce of the sector itself. Music education is not simply about producing future music professionals. It equips young people with creativity, confidence, resilience and the skills of collaboration, and it improves well-being while delivering significant cultural and social benefits.
The music industry has concerns about the proposed reforms. Reflecting these concerns, I will argue for four specific adjustments to the Government’s proposals. First, the Government should be willing to keep existing successful vocational level 3 qualifications. Secondly, they should work with industry and educators to develop larger V-levels that meet the needs of the creative industries. Thirdly, they should consider whether the T-level model can work to address the technical skills needed in the music sector, and with industry and educators to develop music T-levels that are appropriate for the sector. Fourthly, they should take urgent action to address the decline in A-level music.
On the case for retaining existing Level 3 qualifications, at present, V-levels are a blank slate. They could become successful qualifications if they build on the strengths of established ones but, until that happens, it is vital that successful applied general qualifications, including extended diplomas, remain available. That is particularly important because the numbers taking vocational music qualifications are growing, at a time when GCSE and A-level music entries have been declining. Between 2018 and 2021, the number of pupils taking vocational music qualifications after key stage 4 increased by 48%, demonstrating strong demand and significant untapped potential to engage young people in music education.
The IFS has argued that the Government’s post-16 reform proposals are especially likely to affect those groups who benefit most from vocational pathways: students from lower-income backgrounds, pupils eligible for free school meals, students with special educational needs, students with disabilities, and those who are not yet ready for T-levels. The Cultural Learning Alliance reports that 54% of schools in the most deprived fifth of local authorities have no GCSE music entrants, compared with 21% in the least deprived fifth. Any reduction in proven vocational pathways is therefore likely to have a disproportionate impact on disadvantaged young people.
Successful institutions such as the BRIT School rely heavily on qualifications such as the UAL level 3 extended diploma. There remains no clear like-for-like replacement, and that is putting proven pathways at risk. The value of these pathways can be seen in the achievements of BRIT School alumni including Amy Winehouse, Raye, Olivia Dean, Jessie J and Katie Melua. Over 30 years, the BRIT School has shown how specialist vocational education can transform opportunity. In 2025, 98% of its students progressed to higher education, apprenticeships, employment or further training. The BRIT School warns that if future qualifications move away from the characteristics that have made vocational creative education successful—accessibility, depth of learning and authentic assessment —there is a real risk of narrowing the pipeline of talent entering what is one of the UK’s fastest-growing sectors. Can my noble friend the Minister therefore clarify whether she will look again at retaining current creative sector level 3 qualifications?
If some existing qualifications are ultimately replaced, it is essential that any replacement can serve the same function. The proposed model of small V-levels, equivalent in size to a single A-level, is seen as unlikely to equip students sufficiently for further study or skilled employment in music and the performing arts. Progression within music, the performing arts and other creative industries requires learners to build a portfolio of creative, technical and professional skills over time. Applied level 3 programmes, equivalent to three A-levels, are particularly well suited to supporting that progression.
The proposed focus on V-levels risks dismantling established two-year programmes, including the UAL and RSL extended diplomas, which currently provide successful progression routes into higher education and skilled employment. In specialist areas, such as music performance or music technology, there is a fear that learners could be left without a coherent programme of study. There are also concerns about whether campuses delivering a broad range of subjects at single V-level may lack the specialist facilities—such as recording studios, rehearsal spaces, and music technology equipment—essential to high-quality music performance, composition and music tech courses. I hope my noble friend the Minister can tell me whether the Government will actively consider the larger V-levels, equivalent in size to current extended diplomas, for specialist creative subjects, as recommended by the Becky Francis review.
The question of larger V-levels leads directly to my third point: T-levels. At present, there is no music T-level. However, the challenge is not simply the absence of a music T-level but that the current T-level model is not seen as compatible with the realities of employment within the music industry and other creative industry roles. The music industry is characterised by freelancers, portfolio careers, micro-businesses, project work and self-employment. The proposed T-levels, with their one-size-fits-all lengthy industry placement and narrow and prescriptive national occupational standards, are seen as incompatible. The Curriculum and Assessment Review explicitly recommended a large, flexible V-level for creative disciplines. Replacing this with a single, narrowly defined T-level risks misunderstanding how careers in music develop. Without significant structural changes to T-levels, it is difficult to see how T-levels in their current form could achieve broad uptake among music learners and the music sector.
A triple-size V-level would be much more likely to meet the needs of learners and the music sector. The Government could also work closely with the music sector to develop a broader variety of T-levels that address the range of technical skills needed in the music sector. However, that would need to be accompanied by the financial support that would enable SMEs and other small music businesses to offer placements. So, alongside considering a large, flexible V-level, will my noble friend the Minister commit to working directly with music industry employers, educators and representative bodies to develop a qualification framework that genuinely reflects employment patterns within the sector?
We cannot discuss post-16 education in isolation from what happens earlier in the system. The decline in A-level music that we are seeing begins with declining opportunities to study music at earlier stages of education. To ensure the health of the creative talent pipeline, we must also address the decline in A-level music as a matter of urgency. As I said in our recent debate on live music, our Labour Government inherited an education system in which the EBacc had squeezed music education from the curriculum, damaging both music teacher recruitment and retention and contributing to declining GCSE and A-level entries. A-level music remains in crisis. Entries have fallen by 41% since 2013 to a record low of 4,635 students, while GCSE music entries are around 27% lower than in 2010. Disturbingly, in 18 local authorities, either only one school offers music qualification, either A-level or vocational, or no schools do. That declining trend must be reversed if we are serious about protecting the music talent pipeline into universities, conservatoires, orchestras and the wider music industry.
The Government’s planned reforms to EBacc and Progress 8 should help strengthen arts provision and encourage greater uptake. However, reversing the cumulative effects of many years of curriculum narrowing and funding pressures will require additional action. That should include reforming A-level music in close collaboration with the music sector; broadening the syllabus to reflect the diversity of musical traditions, including black music, that are shaping contemporary British music; completing the current GCSE music review in partnership with the sector; and investing in the music education workforce by improving recruitment and increasing teacher training incentives. Finally, it should include expanding access to music-making opportunities in and beyond school for children from lower-income families.
As I have said, the case for music education extends beyond the needs of the creative industries. Academic research has consistently demonstrated its benefits for cognitive development, the acquisition of adaptive and collaborative skills, and mental health. Research by Making Music and the Association of British Orchestras found that most adults who received music education or learned an instrument at school credit it with providing vital skills that supported their careers, regardless of sector. As we heard on Monday, my noble friend the Minister progressed with both the piano and the cello, so she will understand the skills that she acquired.
Studies suggest that pupils who continue learning music throughout school tend to achieve higher academic outcomes than their peers. Public support for music education is strong. Research commissioned by UK Music found that more than half of parents whose children learn an instrument believe that it enhances creativity, confidence, perseverance and resilience. These educational and social benefits should be considered alongside the economic value of music education when decisions are being made about future qualifications.
This debate is fundamentally about talent, opportunity and growth. The United Kingdom’s creative industries are admired throughout the world, but their future success is not guaranteed. It depends on the choices we make now about education and skills. The question before us is not whether reform is needed but whether reform expands opportunity or narrows it. My concern is that, unless the Government build on what already works, some of the most successful pathways into our creative industries may be lost. Existing level 3 creative qualifications have enabled thousands of young people, including many from disadvantaged backgrounds, to progress into higher education, skilled employment and successful careers in the creative industries. Unless suitable alternatives exist and are shown to work, those pathways should be protected. I therefore urge the Government to retain successful creative level 3 qualifications, to work closely with industries and educators on larger V-levels and fit for purpose T-levels in technical music skills, and to take urgent action to reverse the decline in A-level music.
If we get this right, we will do more than reform qualifications; we will widen opportunity, strengthen social mobility, secure the talent pipeline for our world-leading creative industries, and ensure that the next generation of musicians, producers, composers and creative entrepreneurs can fulfil their potential. That would be good for our young people, good for education and good for the future prosperity of our country. I beg to move.
I will dwell briefly on the In Harmony scheme, which represents a massive career-enhancing opportunity for the noble Baroness on the Front Bench. Although inspired by Julian Lloyd Webber, it was implemented by a Labour Culture Secretary known as Andy Burnham. I visited one of the In Harmony schemes when I was a Minister. It was in west Everton, not unadjacent to a football club supported by a man called Andy Burnham. I will always remember that visit. It was a very emotional one, because the sheer power of music to inspire children from difficult backgrounds, their parents and their carers was a wonder to behold. I hope that, in the next three months, I will see the Minister and the Prime Minister visiting the In Harmony scheme in west Everton, to emphasise the importance of music education, as the noble Baroness, Lady Keeley, pointed out, in not just creating the musicians of the future but inspiring many young people with the rigour, discipline and sense of responsibility that will enhance their prospects in many different ways.
It is good to have a former Culture Secretary as our Prime Minister. The more I debate issues in this place, the more I think not about picking winners but that this is a fantastic country that should be focusing on our natural advantages. We need a Government who will focus and double down on them. It goes without saying that the creative industries are one of those advantages—film, television, video games, fashion and indeed music. The noble Baroness mentioned the BRIT School. It is a phenomenal institution, set up by the record industry, which has itself, perhaps inadvertently, been picking winners, from Adele to Olivia Dean, throughout its existence. It obviously needs continued support from government, but it is important that we understand just how important the creative industries are, not just for our national life but, frankly, for our economy.
In looking at the future of T-levels and V-levels for the creative industries, I wonder whether I am wrong in thinking that perhaps they have been put at the back of the queue. The first V-levels coming in 2027 are, as I understand it, digital, accounting and child development —very important issues—but creative T-levels are due to arrive only in 2029 and creative V-levels a year later in 2030. They are the last carriages on the train. I would be interested to hear from the Minister how the department decided to sequence the introduction of these new qualifications. If it is because they are harder to design, that would be understandable.
I hold some reservations on the evidence so far, and I think the noble Baroness, Lady Keeley, referred to this in her remarks. A V-level carries 360 guided learning hours, but the BRIT School has said that something like 1,000 guided learning hours are needed—360 hours is the equivalent of a single A-level. The qualifications being replaced, including the larger BTECs, offer a great deal more. In the Government’s own consultation response, industry and universities both said that 360 hours was not enough to give them confidence.
V-level content is tied to occupational standards set by Skills England. That might be a perfectly sensible discipline for accountancy, where an accountant is a recognisable thing, but UK Music put the difficulty well: creative careers are portfolio careers, and forcing qualifications to align with occupational standards that do not exist risks making them irrelevant to how the industry actually works. In 20 years around this sector, I have met very few people in the sector doing one job. The Government have promised to consult on content before these courses launch, and I would like the Minister’s assurance that this means the sector will be helping to co-design them, not merely commenting on a fait accompli.
There is always a problem with vocational practical technical qualifications. Most parliamentarians and civil servants have gone the university route. They do not know about further education colleges and the amazing work that they do or the very wide range of qualifications and individuals they support, so they meddle, in a way that we do not see with GCSE or A-level. We continue to have BTECs, understood by students, universities, employers and, crucially, many parents, but they are now under threat as the newer, shinier T-levels—technical, you understand, being so much classier than vocational—arrive on the scene, to be followed by V-levels. Come back, vocational, all is forgiven. It takes a while for any new qualification to be understood and valued, more so for practical than academic ones. Just as T-levels have taken a while to find their place, who knows how long it will take for V-levels to be the talk of the town?
We should thank the university technical colleges, the valuable UTCs of the noble Lord, Lord Baker, which provide a clear path to skilled employment, because a number of them have developed particular expertise in supporting the creative industries, where employers continue to face skills shortages. The creative industries are among the most valued and valuable of our industries. The UK leads the world in many of these skill sets. The Heritage Crafts Association produces a regular list of endangered crafts, some continued by a sole trader, where taking on an apprentice would severely affect their ability to earn a living. Yet anyone who embarks on silversmithing, clock-making, enamelling, basket-making or upholstering knows the immense satisfaction in creativity. I will not talk about music, because the noble Baroness, Lady Keeley, has spoken so eloquently about that, but music and dance are vital skills which really enhance life. If we lost any of these skills, it would be a real loss to our quality of life as well as to the economy, so we should venture with extreme caution in changing qualifications that are valued and understood.
Why not put effort into attracting the young, and not so young, into supporting crafts in danger which could enrich their lives? Why are the Government embarking on V-levels when there are already established qualifications for the creative industries? Many are under threat and need support, not a pointless exercise in rebranding. There are level 3 diplomas and extended diplomas with some 84,000 students, who do not need to be distracted by the arrival of a new kid on the block in the form of mysterious V-levels. Please will the Minister commit to pause defunding of existing creative levels 1, 2 and 3 qualifications until creative T-levels and V-levels have been fully designed and piloted and shown to deliver work-based standards and comparable outcomes for progression? This is particularly important for SEND learners and disadvantaged students, many of whom may have talents in creativity far in excess of their abilities in other subjects. I look forward to the Minister’s reply and, like others, I welcome her back to her brief.
My good friend Emily Burnett is a BAFTA-winning actor for film and TV and a theatre performer; she is also a writer, a director and a producer. Steve McQueen is a Turner Prize winner for video installation, has been shown at the Tate and the Serpentine and won an Oscar for the film “12 Years a Slave”—one career, moving fluidly between fine art, documentary and narrative film. No single occupational standard could describe these trajectories, let alone train for them. While the creative arts require technical skills, they also need aptitude, fluidity and inspiration. They are more than the sum of their constituent skills.
This points to a category error at the heart of the reform. T-levels are, by design, technical qualifications, built to prepare a student for a specific occupation, with a narrow specialism at their core. The craft and design T-level’s occupational specialisms map to single, narrow trade standards: ceramicist, bespoke furniture-maker, garment-maker and jewellery-maker. Each is precise and each is far narrower than the breadth that a young person needs to build a creative career. Practitioners move fluidly across creative, technical and entrepreneurial work over a single career—what the sector calls a polymathic, portfolio-based working life.
That mismatch has already shown up in the numbers. Two creative T-levels have now been through full commissioning and delivery. Craft and design managed just 136 starts in its debut year; media, broadcast and production managed around 600. Combined, this is a rounding error against the roughly 84,000 learners currently on large, creative level 3 qualifications.
Creative education is vocational not technical; it builds a craft and a practice, not entry to one job title, and that distinction has a practical consequence in learning hours. A T-level runs to around 1,800 hours across two years, weighted heavily towards one narrow specialism and a placement. A single V-level, by contrast, is projected to be 360 guided learning hours, like an A-level. Neither fits creative training, which needs not the narrow technical depth of one occupation or the shallow breadth of 360 hours but sustained studio and rehearsal time across a broad practice. That is precisely what the UAL extended diploma’s 1,080 to 1,170 hours currently provide.
Two further technical problems would need to be resolved. The first is assessment. T-levels require substantial examined assessment, but A-level art and design, as an example, has long relied on non-examined, portfolio-based assessment, precisely because it captures the creative process and development that a timed exam cannot. The BRIT School told the Curriculum and Assessment Review that learners must be graded on vocational ability, not solely on written ability under pressured exam conditions. Push creative qualifications towards examination and we repeat a known mistake: students writing about practical outcomes instead of producing them.
Secondly, on industry engagement, T-levels currently require a discrete 45-day placement, which depends on employers being able to host it. The extended diploma embeds industry engagement continuously, with live briefs and employer-set projects running throughout the course.
I know the Minister is listening to these arguments and I hope the creative sector can engage with her to find the right way forward. To do that, the engagement needs to quickly resolve whether we can rebuild occupational standards for creative jobs. If not, the sector should then be given the certainty of retaining the extended diploma. This existing qualification already delivers the right hours, the right assessment and continuous industry engagement, with progression into higher education that nearly three-quarters of the creative workforce holds. Ministers can then confirm its funding on a permanent footing, rather than a repeated reprieve to 2030, and then let T-levels and V-levels find their places alongside it, not in place of it.
I will make three brief and broad points. First, and most importantly, the creative industries are too vital a part of our economy to get this wrong. When tens of billions of pounds of gross value added and the jobs of two million people are at stake, we need to attract the best recruits and ensure that no unhelpful obstacles or poor offerings impede keen youngsters, whatever their background. It is clear that the Government want exactly that.
Secondly, creative roles increasingly blend technical fluency, software and digital production data with distinctly human capabilities such as originality, storytelling and collaboration. It is clearly a sign of the times that I met recently a senior executive in a company who was indeed “director of storytelling”.
A creative economy that wants to keep growing needs a pipeline of people who can move fluidly between craft and technical skills. It is clear that placements are an important part of these qualifications. I was very struck by the responses of students who struggled to find placements, particularly in the creative industries sector, given that 95% of companies are microbusinesses and up to a third of the workforce is self-employed. Can my noble friend say how the Government will address the placement issue?
Thirdly, digital technologies and AI are increasingly being used to create exciting opportunities, but there will need to be continuous learning to enable them to update technical skills. This is linked to the growing demand for collaboration across disciplines. Creative professionals now often work alongside software developers, engineers, marketers and data analysts. Therefore, communication, teamwork, problem solving, adaptability and leadership skills need to be developed. Anybody who has seen the film “The Odyssey” and sat through what must be at least five minutes of acknowledgements at the end of the film for all the crafts and skills involved would echo that.
All of this points to the need for close consultation and co-operation with those charged with developing the courses, exams and assessments for these subjects. It is clear that providers want to work with the Government to get this right, but it is also clear they have significant concerns. Many students who thrive on coursework-based learning may find the structure of T-levels less accessible. There are concerns about the number of guided learning hours in V-levels, with industry and higher education stakeholders anxious that it will not be enough to assess levels of applied experience and practical competence. UK Music has argued that national occupational standards are not appropriate for creative careers, and University of the Arts London called for the Government to allow flexibility of content.
I know higher education institutions support a diverse post-16 qualifications landscape, with multiple pathways beyond A-levels and T-levels, particularly in creative and practice-based disciplines. But arts and vocational subjects have already been squeezed by previous policy decisions. Reforms need to strengthen not reduce creative pathways, ensuring parity of esteem between vocational and academic qualifications, and protect progression opportunities into creative careers.
Finally, echoing one of the points made by my noble friend Lady Keeley, I ask my noble friend the Minister whether she will pause decisions on funding existing successful creative level 3 qualifications until the new T and V-levels have been designed, piloted and shown to deliver comparable—or even better—outcomes.
Now, we are seeing the see-saw come down the other way. We have a Government who last year said they would end what the playwright James Graham described as the madness of the last decade, when cultural subjects had been so devalued. Let us look at the reality of that. Since 2010, enrolment in arts GCSEs has fallen by 40%, and the number of arts teachers has fallen by 23%. Several noble Lords have already made really important points on the question of A-levels and T-levels, such as whether, as the noble Baroness, Lady Keeley, said, these will have the depth of learning and effective assessment. The noble Lord, Lord Vaizey—not currently in his place—asked whether there were enough hours. The noble Lord, Lord Knight, made powerful points about the difficulty of something structured for accountancy, for example, being applied to the creative sector.
I am going to park all those questions and simply ask the Minister: given the background I have painted, are the Government confident that there will be enough resources in terms of human capacity, such as trained and experienced teachers, to deliver what the Government are proposing? Along similar lines, I reflect back on a Learn with the Lords visit to a school—which I am going to anonymise, so as not to get anyone into trouble—where the arts teacher told me that when he started, a decade or so earlier, he had a budget of £3,500 a year for materials. His current budget for materials is £500. I am not talking here about inflation adjusting—I am talking about raw pound figures. Are the Government going to resource these arts subjects in the way they need to be resourced?
I want to take a step further back. If these V-levels and T-levels are to work, we need to see students taking them up and being encouraged to follow their interests and passions. I imagine that the Minister is aware of the recent Nuffield Foundation report that focused on the underrepresentation of women and girls and people from lower-income backgrounds in the creative industries. That is a pathway that narrows and narrows along people’s life courses. It looked at 1.7 million students in England and surveyed people working in creative fields. Encouragingly, almost half of 14 year-olds said that they enjoy creative subjects, but just one in 25 was working in a creative occupation by their early 30s. At every stage—GCSE, post-16 and higher education—there was a fall-off in the figures, but particularly among poorer students and girls, with girls from lower-income backgrounds doubly affected. What will the Government do to ensure that we have a real flow of the range of students we want to see into these V-levels and T-levels?
I have two final brief points. I am sure the Minister is also aware of the creativity collaboratives programme, which has piloted embedding creativity in classrooms by addressing not just specific subjects but the entire curriculum. It is an approach that focuses on pupils’ ability to think imaginatively, to make connections and to generate original ideas. Again, if we have that education right from the start of primary school and onwards, that could feed pupils into these T-levels and V-levels. Will that happen?
Finally, there has been a lot of focus in this debate on the importance of creative education and the creative sector to the economy. I will focus on something more important. We often hear talk of STEM subjects providing solutions to our polycrises: the climate and nature emergencies, poverty, inequality, dissatisfaction with politics and the sense of disempowerment in communities. However, solutions often must come from the creative sector—from people coming up with new ideas, new solutions and new approaches to living on this battered planet, and from people getting together and co-operating. It is crucial that the Government get this creative education right. They are heading in the right direction in reprioritising it, but there are many questions that your Lordships are rightly asking.
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.
To repeat, because T-levels exist, funding will be removed from alternative level 3 qualifications of 1,080 or more guided learning hours that map across to them for the 2027-28 year. What does that mean for the screen industries? What does it mean for the Ofsted “outstanding” London Screen Academy, founded and supported by leaders from the film and television industries? It delivers UAL level 3 and level 4 diplomas across a range of screen disciplines. Will parts or all of that provision be defunded? What does it mean for Birmingham Ormiston Academy, whose innovative partnerships are helping to build Birmingham’s fast-growing screen cluster? Which parts of its screen and stage academy BTEC provision are now at risk? I ask the Minister to consider aligning funding and change timelines, so that the sector and its providers can be considered strategically and as a whole. Important though those T-level students are, their numbers do not come close to meeting future workforce demand, and nor do they justify destabilising successful institutions and courses at such speed.
To turn to another example, on visual effects, animation and games, 10 years ago industry leaders UK Screen and Ukie decided not to wait for policy to catch up. They created the NextGen/AIM extended diploma in VFX, animation and games, and established the NextGen Skills Academy network, supporting partner colleges across England and Northern Ireland. More than 3,000 young people have since benefited from high-quality education and strong progression routes. That success now faces uncertainty, as Skills England develops a T-level focused solely on visual effects. UK Screen is clear that industry needs a broader qualification in computer-generated screen content, one that reflects the reality of modern production, is viable for colleges to deliver at scale and supports progression opportunities for young people into adjacent sectors.
In addition, there is an issue with finding work placements in industries that are populated by small companies. They are also an issue in the nations and regions of the UK. The main cluster of these industries is placed in London and the south-east. To have opportunities to experience them, people and young people elsewhere will require different forms of accessing them. If not, we face a Catch-22. Creative investment will not go to largely deprived rural and coastal areas where skills provision does not already exist, and skills provision cannot exist unless there are local employers to supply the placements. It is a Catch-22.
As the Creative Industries Council has made clear to government, the existing level 3 qualifications and the key institutions that deliver them are a vital part of the UK’s creative ecosystem. I declare an interest, having led skills and education for the Creative Industries Council for over a decade.
Qualifications need updating and simplification is important, but a simplification-first approach risks destabilising successful provision and limiting opportunity. Without employer confidence and support, change will not succeed. We must find a more flexible and pragmatic way forward that protects opportunities for young people and strengthens the talent pipeline on which these growth industries depend. I look forward to the Minister’s response.