Okay, I've also carried out lots of research today about this and it's shocking how little even the training providers know about the legislation. Some say one thing and others say another. The college I've been working with at least admitted that they weren't sure. Half of the problem is that the government implement things without providing full clarification. So where to start...
Okay, so I phoned up Education and Skills Funding Agency expecting them to know. The chap I spoke to went away, then came back and said that the wording in unclear so he would have to raise an "Incident" ticket so they can investigate. I should therefore expect clarification within 5 working days.
I then called ACAS and the chap I spoke to was adamant that a 19+ year old that's done an NVQ Level 2 can go onto an NVQ Level 3 and still be paid £3.50/hr because it'll be classed as their 1st year within that apprenticeship. I have recorded this call in case it turns out to be wrong and we get taken to a tribunal.
I would have expected the ESFA to know more about this than ACAS but there you go.
In terms of costing, if a 19+ year old doing a second NVQ could demand NMW there would be absolutely no point in an employer taking that person on because the cost benefits aren't there:
1. Small employer now has to pay 10% "co-investment" for the apprenticeship.
2. The employer has to pay them for 5 working days but only gets them for 4 due to "off-job training".
3. The employer grant has been reduced from £1500 to £1000 (GM AGE has extended the £1500 to end of July).
4. The additional £1000 an employer could claim for providing an Advanced (i.e NVQ Level 3) or Higher (i.e. Degree) apprenticeship has now been restricted to Higher apprenticeships only.
Where is the logic? I've wasted most of today looking into this and I'm still not convinced I have the correct answers.
Your error is in assuming that a policy that has evolved on the hoof is logical:
We should have a national Minimum Wage.
YAY we have a national minimum wage.
But should it be paid to people who aren't experienced enough to do a full job?
Hmm, let's put in age levels for different rates, let's say the full rate is only payable to those over 21.
Great, what about under 18's?
OK, lower rate for under 18's compared to 18-22 year olds.
22 year olds? That's a bit weird.
Ah, when we said over 21 we meant after their 21st birthday, not 22 year olds.
Right, so you meant full minimum wage for 21 year olds and over.
That's it, we've got it straight now.
Hang on, we've got a different government and they think it's best to call it a National LIVING wage, but it should only be paid to those who are 25.
Great so anyone who is 25 or over and in a full time job will be paid enough to live on.
No, we never said it was enough to live on, we just needed a new name and chose that one.
What about apprentices? An apprentice can't be worth as much as a proper employee, surely?
You're right. Different rate for apprentices.
But these days someone can be greatly experienced in the workplace, for example as a steel worker, but needs to retrain because their industry has died and they need to retrain. While they are apprentices in the sense of needing to learn the new skill they offer a huge amount in the workplace.
OK, if they are over 19 they only get the apprentice rate in their first apprentice year.
How many first apprentice years can an individual have?
AAARRGGGGHHHHHHHHHHH
