Creative Industries: Qualifications

Baroness Keeley Excerpts

Thursday 23rd July 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Keeley]

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.

[Baroness Keeley (Lab)]

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”


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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Keeley (Lab)]

My Lords, I welcome the Minister’s reappointment, and I was glad to hear almost everybody else mention that. We are so glad to see her back with us and thank her for what she has just said.

I shall reflect for a moment or two on the debate. The noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, raised the In Harmony scheme. I had not heard of it, but that could be a good descriptor for this debate because we have been harmonious in what we have said. We obviously think across the piece that the BRIT School is wonderful and the creative industries are vital for the economy, as evidenced in successes in places such as the BRIT School and, I will hazard, although I have not been there, the In Harmony scheme as well.

I did not know about the issues in City & Guilds which the noble Baroness, Lady Garden, raised, but she said, and it is important, that we should have extreme caution about replacing qualifications that have stood the test of time—absolutely. That has been echoed by many noble Lords. My noble friend Lord Knight illuminated us about his role in “Oliver!” and founding a company with Sam Mendes, which is another theme, it seems, for today. My noble friend was clear-headed about the category error that T-levels are technical and creative skills and careers are not, as many others have said.

My noble friend Lady Warwick raised another theme: that the creative industries are vital, so we cannot afford to get it wrong. Many contributions have made that point and that we need people who can work with fluidity between disciplines. She made the point that arts and vocational qualifications have already been squeezed by earlier policy decisions.

I should congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, on squeezing in the subject of first past the post and the Nuffield report on the position of women working in the creative industries—that was very creative in itself.

I thank my noble friends Lord Isaac and Lord Knight for their work in gathering information that went into the briefing. That was useful, but my noble friend Lord Isaac made the point, echoed by my noble friend Lord John, that we should not damage successful qualifications.

The noble Baroness, Lady Caine, brought her extensive experience in the creative industries, and particularly in screens, and said that one-size-fits-all is the wrong approach. She asked, quite importantly, what removing funding from existing qualifications means for, for instance, the screen industries, and whether it could put at risk regional clusters, such as those developing in Birmingham. That is an important point.

From the noble Baroness, Lady Gill, we heard about the project-based reality of the film industry. That has to be recognised. She made the point that collaborative skills and deeply immersive craft skills are needed, and that single V-levels would not provide the fluidity needed.

The noble Baroness, Lady Kingsmill, was a roommate of mine, but I did not know that she had fashion industry experience, but looking at her I am not at all surprised. The important point was made that DCMS and DfE need to jointly assess whether these qualifications are suitable.

I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Watson of Invergowrie, on working on the Protect Student Choice campaign. That clearly did some good, and meant that tens of thousands of young people were able to do courses and were not defunded. He asked what role UTCs would have, which is an important point.

The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, had a link to Sam Mendes, which has been an interesting aspect of this. She made the point that the creative industries are unique, so it has never been about training for a particular job or role. It is not one-size-fits-all.

I very much welcome what my noble friend the Minister said about the creative advisory group. I urge her to include the music industry in that, because it is very insistent that it wants to be heard. I welcome the other point she made that it is not just about simplifying qualifications.

Finally, to go back to what I said earlier about the BRIT School, future qualifications should not move away from the characteristics that have made our vocational creative education so successful. We do not want to narrow the pipeline of talent which we so value in our creative industries.

Motion agreed.