The benefits of brokering NHS partnerships are innumerable. Get started now!

I have previously written in FE Week about the role of education providers in supporting NHS staffing challenges. As a direct result, I was invited to speak last week at a national NHS conference about sustaining the healthcare workforce, where I encouraged NHS employers to establish, if needed, lines of communication with their local FE colleges.

Now I think we need to do the same. The NHS workforce plan laid out ambitious targets, but the reality is that the current pipeline of future employees is falling short. Applications for health courses at UK universities are down nationally. We need to be capturing learners earlier, and getting people excited about what an NHS career could look like.

To that end, the FE sector needs strong links with senior NHS leaders to forge meaningful long-term partnerships. So, FE leaders: where strong partnerships aren’t already established, be bold in your approach. Pick up the phone, broker a meeting and try to secure that buy-in.

In Bolton, we’ve worked hard to achieve this. This is partly though the Bolton Vision partnership which brings together key public sector service providers, and partly through proactively setting up a monthly meeting with key practitioners within Bolton NHS Trust, the University of Bolton and Bolton College.

This keeps us informed of important operational developments, with key NHS staff able to tell us directly where they’re seeing shortfalls. We’re able to share our own challenges too, such as in securing staff with clinical experience. Doing this has resulted in work to explore mixed models of teaching that enable hospital staff to continue in operational roles while teaching part-time. We’ve also been able to secure a senior NHS director to sit on the Bolton College board.

The benefits are abundantly clear. We’ve seen some real highs in recent years, including a successful joint capital bid for the new Institute of Medical Sciences and securing high-quality work placements for the first wave of Health T level students.

The benefits are abundantly clear

It’s also helped us to create new community pathways for adult learners, for which we have devolved funding in Greater Manchester. We’ve worked closely with the Greater Manchester Combined Authority and Bolton Council on how best to utilise that and are running programmes across community centres offering routes back into study.

I’m particularly proud of one cohort of learners who participated in a community healthcare taster course, subsequently completed level 2 and level 3 at the College and have just graduated from the University of Bolton with nursing degrees. Creating local routes for local jobs in our NHS is a brilliant example of how we can work together.

But it’s not all about putting students on track for clinical careers. We also sit on the Bolton digital partnership board, where we discovered that the NHS’ digital arm is significantly understaffed, particularly in health informatics.

We’ve since worked closely with the Trust’s digital team to shape our digital Higher Technical Qualifications, aligning them more closely with sought-after skills and co-designing work-ready assessments. We’ve also invited NHS digital staff to talk to students about the careers available to them. Where students previously had no idea what ‘health informatics’ was, there’s now a huge appetite to pursue it, and we’ve seen high numbers of students opting to do work placements with the NHS.

And this partnership is benefiting our learners in other ways too. Through the AoC Region and working with GMColleges, we’ve secured funding over the past three years from the devolved Greater Manchester mental health and social care partnership and the violence reduction unit to develop learning resource on knife crime, sexual exploitation and consent – all identified as drivers of mental health issues for young people in Bolton.

My message to college leaders is simple: Pick up the phone and begin cementing a regular channel of two-way communication. Get a seat at the table, or invite them to have one at yours. FE has a vital role to play in delivering the NHS’ future workforce, but we need long-term partnership structures in place to do this effectively.

Workforce data indicates little prospect of staff shortages improving any time soon

Recent employer surveys suggest we are seeing unprecedented levels of skills shortages, threatening England’s prospects for economic growth. T levels have been specially designed to address these national skills shortages. Additionally, earlier this year Rishi Sunak set a mission for all young people to study maths to age 18, citing the link between basic numeracy skills and individuals’ future earnings.

The success of these and other initiatives to reduce skills shortages in the economy are all reliant on the FE sector, particularly the skill and capacity of the FE teaching workforce. Funding for the FE sector from government has failed to reflect this.

In 2019/20, per-pupil funding for FE colleges was eight per cent lower in real terms compared with 2013/14, making it difficult for colleges to allocate money for higher staff pay. This trend has been partially reversed recently, but it remains to be seen how much of the 18 per cent fall in real-terms pay for FE teachers since 2010/11 will be reinstated.

Deteriorating pay is likely to be contributing to increasingly severe staffing shortages. Data from the Association of Colleges shows that the average college has 30 unfilled teaching vacancies, while DfE data shows that over the past decade the rate of FE teachers leaving the profession has been significantly higher than for primary and secondary school teachers. This situation has been getting worse, with over half of FE teachers who entered the profession in 2014/15 leaving the sector within five years.

New FE workforce data published last week provides another glimpse into the potential links between FE funding, teacher recruitment and retention and pay. Three patterns in the data suggest that, in the absence of concerted policy action, FE staff shortages are unlikely to improve in the coming years.

Long-term decline in real earnings continues

DfE’s new workforce statistics coupled with existing estimates of FE teacher pay based on pension records show that the real-terms earnings of teachers working in general FE colleges fell between 2019/20 and 2021/22, continuing a decade-long trend of below-inflation pay rises for teaching staff. This is likely to be linked to the high number of unfilled teacher vacancies in FE colleges.

Vacancies greatest in the highest-earning subject areas

Last week’s FE workforce statistics also revealed that the highest rates of unfilled teacher vacancies were in construction, planning and the built environment, electronics, agriculture and horticulture, design, engineering and manufacturing, and accounting and finance.

Evidence suggests that pay gaps between FE teaching and industry occupations are largest in the construction, engineering and digital industries. However, further research is needed to better understand the relative size of pay gaps between FE teaching and industry and how these impact recruitment and retention.

Differential levels of pay

FE teachers in the subjects with the highest rates of unfilled vacancies are paid more than average, potentially reflecting the challenges providers experience competing with industry pay.

The data shows that, generally, FE teachers in subjects with the highest number of vacancies tend to be paid more than the typical teacher in a general FE college. Unlike in state-sector schools, FE colleges set pay scales for teaching staff themselves, so this may reflect FE colleges offering a pay premium to recruit in shortage subjects.

Staff shortages have immediate and direct impacts on students, as colleges struggle to recruit teachers with the appropriate level of technical and teaching skills. Staff shortages may also impact on the government’s ability to continue to roll out T levels and implement ‘maths to 18’ – policies which could benefit disadvantaged students the most if successfully implemented.

Patterns in the data do not suggest that the necessary foundation for success of these policies – a sufficiently strong FE teaching workforce – is firmly in place.   

Further research is needed on the role of pay in FE teacher recruitment and retention. NFER has been commissioned by the Gatsby Foundation to explore this area in detail and we look forward to publishing our findings and contributing further insights early next year.

155,000 young people to ‘fall through the gap’ left by BTECs, report warns

At least 155,000 young people will be left without a suitable post-16 course from 2026 as a result of the government’s plan to axe most BTECs, new analysis suggests.

Experts predict that a sharp drop in the number of applied general qualifications, like BTECs, coupled with slow growth in the number of students taking their replacement T Levels will lead to one in eight sixth formers “falling through the gap”.

First-of-their-kind projections to measure the scale of the impact of ministers’ controversial level 3 reforms have been released today by the Protect Student Choice campaign, in the absence of any official modelling from the government.

In a scathing report, the campaign also lays into ministers for “playing fast and loose” with data by using it in a “partial and misleading” way to justify their plans.

Sector leaders said the findings highlight a “disaster waiting to happen” and urged ministers to “put young people ahead of political game playing” by pausing and reviewing the reforms.

But skills minister Robert Halfon defended the reforms: “We no longer incentivise courses like self-tanning, balloon artistry and pole fitness instructing – as the last government did. 

“We’ve worked hand in glove with hundreds of employers to rebuild the entire skills system. Alternative qualifications including BTECs will continue, however, we will be removing those where there is poor uptake, inadequate outcomes, or overlap with our world-class T Levels.”

‘Calamitous impact’ of level 3 reforms revealed

The DfE is creating a streamlined system for students finishing their GCSEs which pushes them to study either A-levels, T Levels, or an apprenticeship from 2025.

Alternative applied general qualifications (AGQs) like Pearson’s popular BTECs will only get funding from this point if they do not overlap with the other qualifications and pass a strict approvals process.

A freedom of information request by the Sixth Form Colleges Association, which leads the Protect Student Choice campaign, found there were 281,260 students studying at least one level 3 AGQ in 2022/23, and 15,410 were studying a T Level. 

The association’s report warned that AGQ numbers will fall rapidly and significantly: 191,257 students are studying qualifications that the government has already deemed to be ineligible for reapproval and will scrap by 2026. The remaining 90,003 are studying qualifications that the government will consider reapproving.

The SFCA predicts that linear growth – a steady level of increase based on the three years of student numbers available – in T Level learners is the most likely trend, which would lead to 51,482 T Level enrolments by 2026.

Analysis indicates that at least 155,185 students – around 13 per cent of sixth formers in England – are currently enrolled on an AGQ that will be scrapped and will not be able to enrol on a T Level if growth follows the SFCA’s linear projection.

The association said this is “almost certainly” a significant underestimate, as it has assumed that all applied general eligible for reapproval will successfully navigate the reapproval process, which in practice is “extremely unlikely”.

Funding was made available in the 2021 spending review for “up to 100,000 T Level students” by 2024/25. 

The SFCA said that achieving this number in the next two years would involve near-exponential growth, which is “not consistent with enrolment patterns to date”.

Ministers believe that T Levels will “gain traction” when competing qualifications like BTECs have been removed.

But the SFCA warned scrapping BTECs to drive up T Level numbers is a “high risk strategy that is not supported by evidence”, adding that “many” schools and colleges predict the reforms are more likely to drive up A-level numbers instead.

Geoff Barton, general secretary of the Association of School and College Leaders, said: “This data-driven report finally reveals the calamitous impact they [the government’s reforms] will have. The government should now pause and review its plans as a matter of extreme urgency. To fail to do so is to wilfully abandon the futures of a whole generation of sixth form students.”

Halfon said: “This September there are 18 high quality T Levels available offered at more than 160 providers across the country. More courses will be coming on board over the next few years, so we expect student numbers to rise as these are rolled out.”

‘Desperate’ ministers misuse data

Ministers also stand accused of being “so desperate” to boost the number of students taking T Levels that they routinely misuse a range of measures to understate the performance of applied general qualifications and overstate the performance of T Levels.

For example, qualifications like the BTEC foundation diploma in health and social care have been criticised by ministers because “less than 5 per cent” of students progress to higher education. What officials ignore is that 64 per of students studying this qualification progress to employment and 24 per cent to further education, according to the SFCA.

The association said that by contrast, ministers routinely describe T Levels as “gold standard” qualifications that offer “the best progression for students”. Yet detailed performance data for T Levels will not be available until 2025 and progression data not until 2027 at the earliest. Data is currently limited to pass rates.

Jo Grady, general secretary of University and College Union, said: “It is incredibly worrying that ministers are playing fast and loose with the relevant data to push ahead with their flawed plans.”

Bill Watkin, chief executive of the Sixth Form Colleges Association, added: “T Levels are a welcome addition to the qualifications landscape, but there is simply no data to support the government’s claim that they are a gold standard improvement on BTECs.

“Ministers must pause and review their plan, to avoid doing serious damage to young people, social mobility and the economy.”

DfE to appoint ‘expert’ apprenticeship training providers

The government is creating a group of “expert” apprenticeship providers in a new pilot programme unveiled today.

Those selected for this “mark of excellence” will be given “more access” to Department for Education systems in a bid to reduce the time and resource providers commit to coaching non-levy paying employers through the apprenticeship system.

But entry criteria is strict and eliminates many of the largest apprenticeship providers from participating.

The DfE is searching for a maximum of 15 providers to join the 12-month pilot, comprising seven independent training providers, five FE colleges and three higher education providers to “be reflective of current market share”.

To be considered providers must be rated ‘good’ or ‘outstanding’ by Ofsted, have an apprenticeship achievement rate of at least 51 per cent in 2021/22 as well as a 4-star employer feedback rating.

Early FE Week analysis suggests that of the 1,058 providers on the achievement rate table, just over half (53 per cent) meet the achievement rate and Ofsted criteria.

Big hitters such as the likes of Lifetime Training and HIT Training will already be excluded due to the achievement rates threshold, while other providers like BPP Professional won’t be able to apply due to holding a 3-star employer feedback rating.

Budding apprenticeship ambassadors must also be in “good” financial health and have been delivering apprenticeships for at least five years for FE colleges and ITPs.

Providers will need to already deliver at least 30 per cent, and a minimum of 50 annual starts, of its overall apprenticeships provision to non-levy paying employers.

Applicants must be prime contract holders and must not been sanctioned by the DfE following an audit or investigation in the past five years.

‘Priority engagement’ with officials and special access to DfE systems

The pilot programme is planned to start from October 31 this year. DfE needs responses by September 27 and applicants will be told if they are successful or not from October 16.

The guidance document stressed that the pilot will not include any further funding, but successful providers could see a growth in starts and cost efficiencies from being involved.

The aim of the programme is to make it easier for providers to work with small and medium-sized employers by reducing the time and resource providers need to commit to coaching SMEs through the digital apprenticeship system.

Chosen providers will be able to “use your expert status as a mark of excellence and a marketing tool,” DfE said.

This status will give providers special “flexibilities and permissions” in the apprenticeship service, which includes accessing the system on behalf of SMEs.

Providers will also get “priority engagement opportunities” with DfE officials through workshops and roundtables.

The DfE said the scheme will give “expert” providers the opportunity to “identify and realise operational cost and resource savings”.

The guidance outlines that providers’ expert status will be revoked if they receive any downgrades in Ofsted ratings, the emergence of a safeguarding issue, the termination of an apprenticeship contract, or if they become the subject of a DfE investigation.

IT training provider scoops first Ofsted ‘outstanding’

Darlington-based training provider Baltic Apprenticeships has landed its first ever ‘outstanding’ report from Ofsted.

Inspectors praised the provider for its “well structured and carefully prepared” curriculum in an inspection in August, which was published today. Baltic Apprenticeships also received plaudits for making “substantial improvements” to both its functional skills provision, and for tackling the number of apprentices dropping out of its courses.

Tony Hobbs, managing director at Baltic Apprenticeships, welcomed the report, and said the rating will “allow us to further bridge the gap between education and employment, and accelerate our ability to make a real difference to our learner’s lives and our employer’s skillsets”.

“Our focus on tech and digital apprenticeships isn’t just about generating job opportunities, it’s about creating solid career foundations and building the skills modern businesses need,” he added.

Baltic Apprenticeships was established in 2008 and has scored Ofsted ‘good’ ratings on three inspections before this latest one. The provider mainly delivers courses in ICT, software and digital marketing and has 1,370 apprentices on its books. It also has 272 adult learners on programmes in lean manufacturing, logistics and warehousing.

‘Extensive knowledge’

Ofsted said the “proportion of apprentices who complete their programme is improving rapidly” after the provider took steps to keep them on their courses, such as encouraging employers on the level three digital marketer course to increase their apprenticeship salaries.

The provider also now provides “intensive support” on English and maths, and offers “high-quality sessions” which are “highly valued” by apprentices.

Inspectors put the provider’s high-quality curriculum down to its “leaders’ extensive knowledge of the labour market and their close working relationships with external stakeholders”.

It also received praise for its close work with employers to match apprenticeships with their needs. For instance, the provider included content on additional operating systems to the curriculums on the level three and level four ICT standards after feedback from an employer.

Baltic Apprenticeships’ “accurate oversight” of its courses also came in for praise, with inspectors highlighting its constant dialogue with apprentices and teaching observations to improve the standard of training. Inspectors focused, too, on the provider’s early assessments of apprentices at the start of their courses, and their efforts to adjust training plans to the individual apprentices.

The quality of the courses also means apprentices and adult learners develop “significant new knowledge and skills”, while “most apprentices and learners” also achieve their qualifications.

Inspectors also noted “consistently positive attitudes” among the apprentices and learners, who are “highly committed to successfully completing their programmes”.

Apprentices become ‘active citizens’

Inspectors also highlighted the provider’s “comprehensive careers advice and guidance”, which leaves apprentices “confident” about the options available to them after their courses.

Ofsted further pointed to the provider’s “high priority” focus on “developing apprentices to become active citizens” via volunteering with local charities. For instance, ICT apprentices teach basic computing skills to older members of the community, while a group of apprentices at the provider also renovated a flat to welcome a Ukrainian family to the UK.

“As a result, apprentices have a strong sense of community and the importance of being a good citizen in modern Britain,” inspectors said.

Office for Students slammed for lack of political independence

A House of Lords committee has blasted the Office for Students for a lack of independence from government and for losing trust with “many of its providers”.

In a damning report, the House of Lords’ industry and regulators committee said the actions of the higher education regulator “often appear driven by the ebb and flow of short-term political priorities and media headlines”.

The OfS was set up in 2018 to be an independent body that reports to the Department of Education and parliament, with a brief to work with higher education providers to make sure that students succeed. It regulates more than 400 providers, including 153 colleges.

But the committee’s report, published today following a six-month inquiry, said the regulator “is failing to deliver and does not command the trust or respect of either providers, or students, the very people whose interests it is supposed to defend”.

The OfS’ own actions are often driven by “political priorities”, according to the Lords committee, which stated that while the regulator “does occasionally push back against the government, too often it translates ministerial and media attitudes into regulatory burdens”.

Witnesses cited occasions where media and MPs raised concerns “without clear evidence” about written English competence. The OfS then started putting out edicts requiring spelling and grammar assessment, without any investigation into whether that was necessary, the witnesses said.

The committee heard there was “widespread concern that it simply does the government of the day’s bidding”.

This perception is not aided by the fact that the OfS’ chair, Lord Wharton, continues to take the whip of the governing party in the House of Lords, while simultaneously claiming that the organisation, as a regulator, is independent of the government.

The committee said that although Lord Wharton was under no obligation to do so, it would have “helped to ease concerns if the chair had resigned the whip and become non-affiliated for his time in post”, as other Lords in similar positions have done in the past.

University and College Union general secretary Jo Grady has now called on Lord Wharton to stand down.

DfE letters ‘too prescriptive and unusually frequent’

Today’s report also pointed out that government’s relationship with the OfS is different to other regulators, such as the water services regulation authority, Ofwat.

For instance, the government sends an annual guidance letter to the OfS setting out its priorities for the year with multiple follow up letters, which are “often specific about what the government wants the OfS to do”. In comparison, government sends the water services regulation authority, Ofwat, high-level aims without advice on how to meet those aims.

The OfS has received 26 guidance letters from the DfE since it was established in 2016, according to the report, which added the letters are “too prescriptive and unusually frequent”.

The committee also identified a “worrying” perception that the OfS would punish higher education institutions for any financial difficulties, rather than help them. That had led to some institutions not engaging with the OfS when they face financial pressures “for fear of a punitive regulatory response”.

On top of that, the committee said the OfS’ regulatory framework has become “increasingly prescriptive” over time. It is “too willing to direct higher education providers’ operations and activities, showing little regard to the need to protect institutional autonomy”.

Distrust and friction between the regulator and sector

The OfS has also allegedly given insufficient thought to the impact of its actions, requests and decisions in adding regulatory burdens to providers. The OfS also makes “frequent and often ad hoc requests” for data that are “both burdensome and, at times, duplicative of similar requests from other regulators—including asking providers for the same data submitted to other regulators, but in different formats”, according to the report.

In “many areas”, it “appears unclear to institutions what compliance with the regulatory framework looks like or why the OfS requests data from them”, the Lords said.

This “lack of clarity for providers extends to the OfS’ approach to investigations, where it is not clear what has triggered investigations, the process involved or the likely timescales and outcomes”.

The committee said uncertainty over why the OfS acts “in the way that it does” has created “distrust and friction between the regulator and the sector”.

OfS chair Lord Wharton said the report provided a “helpful opportunity to hear from representatives of higher education institutions, students, and policy-makers, and understand these stakeholders’ thoughts on our regulatory approach”.

He added that the report will provide “further impetus for our work to refresh the way we engage with the sector we regulate, and those for whom we regulate”.

The OfS will respond “more fully in due course”.

EuroSkills Gdańsk 2023

Welcome to this special souvenir supplement celebrating Team UK’s performance at EuroSkills 2023, brought to you by FE Week in association with NOCN.

You’ll find everything you need to know about the competition, including the gruelling preparations, the all-important medal tables and exclusive behind-the-scenes reports from our on-the-ground senior reporter, Anviksha Patel.

Behind every competitor is a team of exceptionally committed training managers, WorldSkills UK officials, employers, families and training providers supporting them. We’re proud to support them too as their official media partner.

Two decades of skills policies haven’t improved productivity, says report

Nearly two decades of reforms to the skills system have failed to improve UK productivity, claims a new report. 

The research, commissioned by the Federation of Awarding Bodies and co-authored by its former chief executive, Tom Bewick, said it “found no evidence to show government skills reforms have had a direct or positive impact on UK productivity” in its analysis tracking back to the Leitch Review of Skills in 2006.

Too much emphasis has been placed on boosting the number of jobs in the economy, the report states, without “improving the quality (and therefore the productivity) of existing jobs,” the report, called Running to Stand Still, said.

Alongside analysis showing how UK worker productivity compares to competitor nations in the OECD, the federation has tracked the extent to which recommendations made in six major skills reviews have been implemented by the government. 

For example, it found that ten recommendations from the 2011 Wolf review of vocational education, four recommendations from the 2016 Sainsbury review of post-16 skills and 13 recommendations from 2019 Augar review of post-18 education have not been implemented.

Interviews with 25 sector experts, including the author of one of those reviews, Baroness Alison Wolf, lay the blame on distrust between the government and sector providers, a lack of consensus on the purpose of education and a “toxic relationship” between the Department for Education and the Treasury. 

‘Skills laggards’

Using qualification attainment levels as a comparator, the report points out that the UK remains third from the bottom of OECD measures of intermediate-level skills in the workforce, despite a commitment made in the Leitch review to “become a world leader in skills by 2020”. Conversely, the UK beats countries like Australia, Germany and France in higher-level skills. 

“Data highlighted in this report and elsewhere shows that access to adult skills and apprenticeships, as a total participation measure, have declined in recent years. It is particularly noticeable that the UK, when compared to other advanced economies in the OECD, has turned into a skills laggard by comparison,” the report said.

Declines in the number of below level 3 qualifications being awarded to adults should be a “major concern” to incoming ministers, according to the report, “because it is a major reason why the UK’s productivity record is so poor”.

Skills policies have failed to help grow productivity. Graph shows flatlined UK productivity since 2005
Source: Running to Stand Still, Federation of Awarding Bodies (2023)

Bewick, who co-authored the report with social researcher Matilda Gosling, said he called the report Running to Stand Still because, “in the end, the main purpose of skills policy should be to support rising real wages and economic growth. 

“Despite the best efforts of successive governments, our detailed analysis of these policies, including feedback from leading sector experts, found no evidence that various skills initiatives have really helped shift the dial on sluggish UK productivity rates”.

‘Regulation has tripled’

Budgetary constraints and the slow workings of Whitehall are also responsible for the government’s failure to act quickly enough to rescue the UK’s poor productivity. 

Experts said that distrust between policymakers and sector providers had contributed to complexity in the skills system, which is also holding back productivity. “The challenge for people working in the Department for Education ‘is that they have to test [changes] out against gaming and unforeseen circumstances.’”

Despite the Sainsbury review talking about simplifying the skills system’s regulator landscape, “it now has more regulators and more qualification categories within it … It feels like regulation has tripled,” according to one interviewee. 

Excessive government regulation in the skills system could itself be harming productivity, the report alleges.

The report doesn’t make firm recommendations on specific policy areas, but does make a plea for a UK-wide “integrated skills plan” and floats a new Department of Employment, Productivity and Workforce Skills to oversee the plan.

It also criticises departments, like DfE and the Department for Work and Pensions, for involving civil servants too much in the delivery of programmes, like T Levels, rather than “what they do best – policy”.

Ofsted won’t inspect education settings on DfE’s RAAC list

Ofsted will “avoid” inspecting education settings that are disrupted by RAAC this term, but only if the provider is on the government’s list of settings with confirmed cases of the crumbly concrete.

The inspectorate last week said it would consider requests from affected schools and colleges under its deferral policy “as an exceptional circumstance”.

But Ofsted has now changed its approach in a statement issued today.

So far 146 schools and one college have been named by the Department for Education as having confirmed RAAC, but this number is expected to increase when the list is updated next week.

“This term we will avoid inspecting any education setting that is on the Department for Education’s published list of education settings affected by RAAC,” the watchdog said.

“These settings will be removed from our scheduling and will not be selected for inspection during the term.”

Ofsted acknowledged “some settings are not on the list, but are still impacted by RAAC in some way – for example, hosting pupils from schools that have RAAC”.

The inspectorate said it had “updated our deferrals guidance to make clear that we will consider disruption as a result of measures taken to deal with RAAC, when looking at inspection deferral”.

These measures “will be kept under review”.

However, if Ofsted has “concerns” about an education setting then it “may continue to carry out an inspection, in line with our current policy, regardless of their situation with RAAC”.