Earlier this month, we spoke to some of our larger members regarding higher appenticeships, as ProSkills had approached us to respond to Government to see if there was a demand for such training. ProSkills has now responded, and their response below encompasses the sectoral view for the Manufacturing and Process Sector as a whole, of which the ‘wood’ industry is now a part: “Since our previous response on this topic, we have carried out a more detailed consultation with employers across our sector. We have found that there are several areas where there are specific needs for updated/new higher level qualifications in a number of industries, and we will work with our employer-led Qualifications Reform Groups to ensure that these are developed. However, the general feeling amongst employers is in our industries is that Apprenticeship frameworks as currently specified are not likely to be the best means of fulfilling their needs. This is due to: – The requirement for functional skills in the current specifications. Whilst this is appropriate for many Apprentices at lower levels, who have issues with basic literacy, numeracy, etc, employers in our sector believe that the higher level qualifications/frameworks that would meet their needs would be a mix of competence and knowledge based content directly relevant to the occupations in question. Including functional skills and PLTS requirements in higher level frameworks would severely limit uptake in our sector, unless there were extremely flexible substitution/APL arrangements for those who already have the functional skills required for their jobs. – The use of the ‘Apprenticeship’ brand. Apprentices are most commonly seen by our employers as people who are new to the industry, and/or those who are learning a new trade starting from a lower level. As such, labelling those who already have experience in the sector, or who already hold relevant qualifications from an academic route, as ‘Apprentices’ is often not appropriate. We firmly believe that there is a need for higher level qualifications to form complete progression routes in our sector, but they will need to use terminology and definitions that suit the employers and individuals involved. – A lack of clarity regarding restrictions on ages and funding. The majority of people who would be suited to higher level qualifications and frameworks in our sector will be over 25, and it is currently not clear what, if any, public support would be available for these candidates in the future. This will have a particularly strong negative effect on SMEs and micro-employers in the sector, who struggle to afford the associated fees and to release people from their jobs to train without some form of public funding. Due to the ongoing nature of these issues we are not able to give any firm timetables for our future framework development, or any detailed predictions for uptake at this stage. We are aware that the SASE/W Apprenticeship framework specifications are currently under review, and we strongly believe that employers should be able to contribute to this process through their Sector Skills Councils. This would help to ensure that future frameworks and qualifications can be designed to develop the skills that are truly valued by industry, and that issues such as those listed above can be minimised. We will continue to work with the employers in our sector to develop the qualifications and frameworks that meet their needs.”