Prevent is preventing education

The crude imposition of Prevent in colleges has created a with-us-or-against-us mentality, running roughshod over the British value of tolerance, argues Rania Hafez

At the beginning of the academic year as my second-year students were streaming in, I noticed one of the lads sporting a slightly bushier beard, and found myself wondering whether it was a hipster beard or a radicalised beard.

Needless to say, the young man in question was Asian Muslim. That is how pervasive the Prevent agenda has become, reducing a teacher (and a Muslim one at that) to racially profiling students and questioning the meaning of their facial hair!

While it is indisputable that the UK and mainland Europe face an ongoing terrorist threat from groups and individuals who self-identify as Muslim, the response to that threat as exemplified by the Prevent policy, a key component of CONTEST, the government’s counter-terrorism strategy, has been counterproductive and particularly damaging to education. Let me outline why.

Neither bushy beards nor burqas are a precursor to terrorist outrages

Firstly Prevent makes a categorical error in assuming that there is a conveyer-belt process that leads from “moderate” religiosity to murderous radicalisation. In fact, neither bushy beards nor burqas are a precursor to terrorist outrages. This fundamental fault has branded an entire faith and its followers as susceptible to extremism, and made teachers responsible for spotting some rather elusive signs. And herein lies the second problem: how are we to define that extremism? Face furniture and sartorial preferences clearly are the wrong way to go.

The government defines extremism as “vocal or active opposition to fundamental British values, including democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and mutual respect and tolerance of different faiths and beliefs”. Yet as any moral philosopher will tell you, values are not geographically bound nor defined by a national legal identity such as being “British”.

The values under question are not absolute: democracy and the rule of law are mutable concepts, open to different perspectives which can at times be contradictory. Take a student who points out in class that opposing unjust laws is a moral imperative and a democratic duty. Under the guidelines she may very well find herself falling foul of this policy and branded an extremist. The whole concept is educationally incoherent.

As a sector we have bought into a flawed policy that is jeopardising our mission and role as educators

The trouble with Prevent is that it will only prevent what education should be encouraging: critical engagement with difficult, even controversial ideas, in an atmosphere that promotes that most fundamental of educational values, freedom of thought and expression.

As a sector we have bought into a flawed policy that is jeopardising our mission and role as educators. And we cannot claim that we did so unwittingly.

The crude imposition and policing of Prevent and British values in schools and colleges have created a binary situation, saying either “you are with us or against us”, totally oblivious to the irony of the fourth British value, “tolerance of different faiths and beliefs”.

We are complicit as a nation in problematising a whole faith community and pathologising actions that are simply an expression of religious observance. We are asked to spy on our Muslim students who are deemed latent victims of radicalisation in need of constant surveillance. And witness the recent Ofsted edict requiring inspectors to question primary school girls who wear a headscarf. It may very well be bushy beards next!

The impact of the Prevent policy on education and on us as educationalists is grave. Prevent has helped legitimise a wider Islamophobic discourse, and our uncritical compliance has made us party to that discourse. That is quite serious indictment for a sector and a profession whose vocation is nurturing critical objective enquiry and promoting equity and justice.

More importantly though, we are failing in upholding and safeguarding education’s sacred purpose and its foundational principles: freedom of thought, freedom of expression, and the unfettered pursuit of knowledge. These are our society’s principal weapons in confronting and defeating extremist ideas, wherever they may come from.

Rania Hafez is programme leader for MA education at the University of Greenwich

Almost 200 T-level panel members announced

The full membership of the first six T-level panels has been announced by the Department for Education.

The 187-strong membership encompasses a range of employers, training providers and college staff across 16 panels in the categories of ‘digital’, ‘education and childcare’, ‘construction’, ‘health and science’, ‘legal’, ‘financial and accounting’, and ‘engineering and manufacturing’.  

This represents the first six classroom-based routes for the new classroom-based technical qualifications due to begin from 2021, though limited pathways will be available in 2020 for courses in ‘digital’, ‘education and childcare’ and ‘construction’.

Notable names announced include the head of software engineering at BBC Online Technology Group, Matthew Wood, who sits on the ‘software applications, design and development’ panel.

The head of apprenticeships at the Construction Industry Training Board, Gillian Cain, is on the ‘on-site construction panel’, while Newcastle College’s vice-principal Scott Bullock is on the ‘health’ panel.

The chief executive of the Chartered Banker Institute, Simon Thompson, will sit on the ‘financial’ panel, while the principal of UTC Sheffield, Alex Reynolds, joins the ‘design and development in engineering and manufacturing’ panel. The manager of emerging talent at Lloyds Banking Group, Damian Jacobs, will sit on the ‘data and business services’ panel. 

 

They range in size, with 15 members on the ‘design and development’ and ‘maintenance, installation and repair’ panels in engineering and marketing, and just seven members on the ‘health’ panel.

The roles are all paid, with chairs receiving £2,000 per quarter while each member’s employer receives £1,000 per quarter. The chairs of the six panels were announced in October.

Still to be announced are the membership of panels for six routes due to begin from 2022: ‘hair and beauty’, ‘agriculture’, ‘environment and animal care’, ‘business and administrative’, ‘catering and hospitality’ and ‘creative and design’.

 

Source: DfE ‘Post-16 technical education reforms’

The membership of the four apprenticeship-only routes of ‘transport and logistics’, ‘sales, marketing and procurement’, ‘social care’ and ‘protective services’ is also still not known.

For the full membership of T-level panels for 2020 and 2021 delivery, click here.

Movers and Shakers: Edition 227

Your weekly guide to who’s new and who’s leaving

Iain Wolloff, Principal, Newbury College

Start date: February 2018
Previous job: Deputy principal, Farnborough College of Technology
Interesting fact: Iain, who began his career in child protection, holds a first-class degree in social science, as well as postgraduate degrees in
politics, teaching and management.

____________________________________________

Helen Camilleri, Business development project manager, the College of Haringey, Enfield and North East London

Start date: October 2017
Previous job: Progression programmes adviser, John Lewis Partnership
Interesting fact: Helen’s favourite food is seafood and garlic with white wine.

____________________________________________

Peter Kennedy, Principal, Franklin College

Start date: February 2018
Previous job: Deputy principal, Huddersfield New College
Interesting fact: Peter has recently developed a passion for running and enjoys putting on his trainers and escaping to the countryside.

____________________________________________

Lucy Edge, Chair designate, Truro and Penwith College

Start date: January 2018
Previous job: Founder and general manager, Avanti Communications Spacecraft Operations Centre
Interesting fact: Outside of work, Lucy is a keen athlete.

____________________________________________

Sir Charlie Mayfield, Non-executive chairman, QA Group

Start date: November 2017
Previous job: Chairman, the John Lewis Partnership (ongoing)
Interesting fact: Sir Charlie began his career as an officer in the army, and went on to become marketing manager for Lucozade.

 

If you want to let us know of any new faces at the top of your college, training provider or awarding organisation please let us know by emailing news@feweek.co.uk

Large fall in advanced learner loan applications

Advanced learner loan applications are continuing to fall, according to new government statistics.

Applications so far for 2017/18 are down 11,100 – or 17 per cent – on the same time last year.

FE Week reported last month that final 2016/17 loan applications dropped across all age groups to which they were available in previous years.

This morning’s statistics show there have been 54,900 loan applications for the year to date, down from 66,000 last year.

Applications from those aged 24 to 30 have shown the biggest drop, down 20 per cent 19,630 this time last year to 15,650 this year.

Apart from A-level applications – numbers of which remain very small – other level three courses have taken the biggest hit.

Just 33,860 applications were for certificate, diploma or vocational courses at this level so far in 2017/18 – down 21 per cent.

Source: DfE, Advanced learner loans application information: November 2017, November 2016

Gordon Marsden, the shadow skills minister, branded the latest figures “awful”, and another “example of a department that is increasingly accident prone and self-combusting”.

“The government has consistently, ever since advanced learner loans came in, just gone hell for leather to expand loans and scrap grants without waiting to see the impact on particular groups,” he said.

Mark Dawe, the chief executive of the Association of Employment and Learning Providers, called the statistics “disappointing” – particularly as they are “an important part of the skills offer” discussed at the government’s Skills Summit on the same day.

“The frustrations are that some independent training providers could deliver more loans-funded learning if growth wasn’t capped and that the door is currently closed to new providers,” he said.

And Stephen Evans, chief executive of the Learning and Work Institute, called for “urgent action” to reverse the downward trend.

“This includes testing new approaches through new career learning pilots and reforms to the system, including greater flexibility to fund modules that adults and employers often want,” he said.

FE loans, originally known as 24+ loans, were introduced in 2013/14 for learners studying courses at levels three or four and aged 24 and older.

Their introduction corresponded with a fall in adults studying at levels three and four+, from 273,400 in 2012/13 to 195,200 in 2013/14, according to the DfE’s own statistics.

That number had fallen further still, to 169,400 by 2015/16.

Yet loan eligibility was expanded in 2016/17 to include 19- to 23-year-olds, and courses at levels five and six.

This expansion led to an increased in overall application numbers in 2016/17 – but this masked drops of between eight and 12 per cent from those age groups that were previously eligible for the loans.

FE Week revealed in September, through a Freedom of Information request, that a massive 58 per cent of FE loans funding – amounting to almost £1 billion – had not been spent since 2013.

The Student Loans Company, which processes advanced learner loans for the government, revealed that only £652 million in loan-funded provision had actually been delivered since 2013, compared with £1.56 billion in allocations.

Former Education and Skills Funding Agency and Institute for Apprenticeships chief executive Peter Lauener took over as leader of the SLC this week, following the dismissal of its previous boss Steve Lamey.

A DfE spokesperson said: “We will continue to work with colleges and training providers to raise the profile of advanced learner loans.”

Two thirds of apprenticeships ‘convert’ existing employees, report warns

Two thirds of apprenticeships are merely “converting” existing employees and could be certifying existing skills, rather than focusing on expanding expertise, a new report has warned.

Researchers recommend that Ofsted inspections should check that these existing employees being converted into apprentices are actually learning new skills.

‘Better apprenticeships’, by social mobility foundation the Sutton Trust, looked at whether apprenticeships are of a high-enough quality to boost the life chances of young people aged 16 to 24.

The issue of employers rebadging existing staff as apprentices – or “conversions” – is one of four “systemic problems” it found within the current apprenticeship model.

Around two thirds of apprentices are conversions, which “highlights the way in which the concept of apprenticeship has been stretched to achieve numerical targets rather than to ensure consistent quality”.

“Although this practice was highlighted in a select committee report in 2008, there is still no robust procedure in place to ensure existing employees are improving their skills rather than just being accredited for their existing competence,” the report said.

It recommended that Ofsted should include “specific processes for ensuring that existing employees are participating in substantial training to develop new skills and occupational expertise”.

“Although reference is made in several reports to the adequacy (or not) of recognising and building on the prior learning and experience of apprentices, there is no distinction made as to whether apprentices are new recruits or existing employees,” it said.

It is also “unclear” how the Institute for Apprenticeships intends to ensure that these conversions are “engaging in substantive training to develop new skills at a higher level”.

READ MORE: apprenticeships must not accredit existing skills

Even though the last Labour government agreed to publish separate statistics on new recruits and conversions from 2010 onwards, “this has still not happened”. 

In an exclusive expert piece for FE Week, Conor Ryan, the research director for the Sutton Trust, claims that the practice of converting existing staff to apprentices is “one way employers can circumvent” the apprenticeship levy, which came into force in May.

“It is vital that there are tough minimum expectations in every apprenticeship, so that they give apprentices the expertise and capability to adapt to a rapidly changing labour market and that they do not become a bureaucratic burden on business to be dodged by clever accountants,” he wrote.

The report concluded that while there are some “very good quality” apprenticeships, “too many” are “failing to provide sufficient training and access to skilled work to enable participants to progress”.

Other problems include the assumption that any workplace and job was suitable for apprenticeships, which leads to “considerable inconsistency across sector and levels”.

The “segmentation of apprenticeships by level puts an automatic break on progression” with “no expectation” that an apprentice will progress onto the next level.

It also said that “funding arrangements do not incentivise quality”.

An Ofsted spokesperson claimed the report “describes what our inspection of apprenticeship training already does”.

“Our focus is on apprentices’ acquisition of new skills, knowledge and behaviours, the quality of their actual training and the progress they are making,” they said. “That applies whether the apprentice is new to the employer or not.”

An IfA spokesperson said: “Each apprentice should undertake a stretching programme which will result in genuine skills gain, not in the accreditation of existing skills.

“It is important that apprenticeships remain available to new and existing employees, but they should only be offered to the latter where substantial training is required to achieve competency in their role.”

A spokesperson for the Department for Education said: “We want to ensure that everyone, regardless of their background or gender, has the ability to fulfil their potential and get the skills and training they need to build a successful career.”

Apprenticeships must not accredit existing knowledge

The apprenticeship levy was a brave move for a Conservative government. But unless it gets to grips with apprenticeships now, a generation of young people will be the big losers, warns Conor Ryan

The government says it wants to see three million more apprenticeships by 2020. Promises of improved quality, and the push on large employers through the levy, are meant to ensure that the ambitious numbers deliver a better trained workforce.

But the reality may fall far short of the rhetoric. Last week, new figures showed a big drop in apprenticeship starts between April and July this year. Today’s Sutton Trust report Better Apprenticeships highlights how the levy could produce perverse incentives. Analysis by Lorna Unwin and Alison Fuller notes that one way employers can circumvent the levy is by converting existing employees into apprentices. Of course, in doing so they may give them new skills, but without robust checks they may simply accredit existing knowledge.

That was something that bedevilled Gordon Brown’s flagship training programme, Train to Gain, in the first decade of this century.

When I was education adviser to Tony Blair in Downing Street, we were desperate to remove the substantial deadweight cost caused both by such accreditation or paying a subsidy for existing training. Yet in their 2009 report, the National Audit Office found that half of employers using the money from the programme said they would have arranged similar training without public subsidy.

One way employers can circumvent the levy is by converting existing employees into apprentices

The levy was supposed to address the latter point by shifting the costs to employers, but the danger is that it does little to develop new skills. Moreover, the public perception of apprenticeships is that they are targeted at young people – largely school leavers – and that they are a practical way for them to gain good qualifications, earning while they do so. But, in reality, the latest government survey suggests two thirds of apprentices are conversions.

It is vital that there are tough minimum expectations in every apprenticeship, so that they give apprentices the expertise and capability to adapt to a rapidly changing labour market and they do not become a bureaucratic burden on business to be dodged by clever accountants.

This is not the only problem with how apprenticeships have developed in England. Instead of being a high quality programme targeted at enabling young people to start a fulfilling career, they have become a catch-all title for training at all levels. So, over 40 per cent of all apprentices are aged over 25, largely at work. Of course, adults at work need upskilling, but they are not apprentices, and those positions should be targeted at young people, particularly those entering the workforce.

And then, among apprenticeships for young people, 60 per cent of places are at intermediate level. New analysis by Sandra McNally for today’s report, of the experience of those aged 16 in 2003 who subsequently embarked on apprenticeships, suggests that fewer than one in four of those who start a level 2 apprenticeship progress to level 3.

The Sutton Trust will be campaigning through 2018 so that in future anyone completing level 2 should automatically progress to level 3, unless they opt out. The focus on apprenticeship starts rather than overall apprentice numbers in the government target does a disservice to young people. McNally’s research also shows that those doing advanced apprenticeships are less likely to be from disadvantaged backgrounds, but those doing level 2 are more likely to be disadvantaged, so such automatic progress is vital to their social mobility. One interesting point in last week’s figures was that intermediate starts had fallen faster than advanced starts, suggesting that a seamless progression could be valued by employers, even if they don’t like the levy.

Good apprenticeships can lead to earnings on a par with academic qualifications, from level 3 through to higher apprenticeships. So, the focus should be on creating more such opportunities for young people and supporting progression to them.

The apprenticeship levy was a brave move for a Conservative government. But unless the government – and the Institute for Apprenticeships as both a quality and access guarantor – gets to grips with apprenticeships now, the danger is that no government will be so brave again. And more importantly, a generation of young people will be the big losers.

Conor Ryan is Director of Research at the Sutton Trust

Read more: Two thirds of apprenticeships ‘convert’ existing employees, new report warns

Industrial strategy: what’s missing is what matters

Given the challenges the UK’s society and economy now faces, the industrial strategy is a rather small, faltering step, according to Professor Ewart Keep

The industrial strategy, launched on a day when the UK media was obsessing about the engagement of the man fifth in line to the throne, did not appear trailing clouds of glory. In the event, this was probably just as well.

Since the financial crisis of 2008, a vaguely defined “industrial strategy” has been back in fashion at a rhetorical if not a practical level and, following New Labour and the Coalition government’s efforts, the current Conservative administration has been putting its own particular, minimalistic stamp on this policy area.

In presentational terms, this new strategy is a retro affair: style substitutes for substance, recalling the glossy productions of Tony Blair’s days. Content-wise, much of it turns out to be very familiar indeed. In the recent past we had “eight great technologies”; now we have “four grand challenges” – AI and data, clean power, transport (mystifying labelled “mobility”), and the ageing society.

The sums of money to back up the good intentions are vanishingly small

A lot of space is devoted to R&D and innovation. We now aspire to become the world’s most innovative economy, but as long as we cling to the outdated “science and science only” model of innovation, our chances are exceedingly slender. Workplace or employee innovation in process and product remain entirely absent in official thinking, which puts us a long way behind many of our competitors, who many years ago realised that incremental improvements were at least as important as the next big breakthrough.

The skills and employment section is an odd mixture of analysis and policy. The strategy is at pains to endlessly repeat how enviable our flexible labour market is, but while we have been very successful at creating a lot of jobs, many of them are low-wage, low-productivity openings propped up by the tax credit system and a crackdown on benefits. How socially and economically sustainable much of this employment will be in the long run is a moot point. It is certainly hard to imagine many Scandinavian workers, or even employers, wanting to copy our model.

The skills measures are an utterly predictable blast from the past: more STEM, extra money for maths teaching, apprenticeship and T-levels, a small sum for some pilot work on FE staff development, another run at adult skills and retraining.

It is also deeply disappointing to see the hoary trope of average wage premiums to degrees still being trotted out, long after longitudinal educational outcomes data showed how utterly misleading this average figure is (25 per cent of all graduates earn less than £20,000 a decade after graduating).

As ever, what is missing is what matters

One warning sign is that, with the exception of the maths teaching policy, the sums of money available to back up these good intentions are often vanishingly small. Radical departures from the traditional policy menu are absent, and the implicit start and finish point is the supply side, with the happy assumption that demand for skill and its effective utilisation in the workplace can be left to market forces and luck.

As ever, what is missing is what matters. The earlier green paper on industrial strategy was mainly focused on 10 per cent of the manufacturing workforce, or one per cent of the overall UK workforce. The latest version of the industrial strategy is only a little broader. The only chink of light is the promise that a review of productivity and growth in SMEs will be undertaken.

The first four emerging sector deals confirmed in the Industrial Strategy cover AI, construction, automotive and the life sciences, but more are expected to follow. In some sectors at least, these may form the template for more joined-up thinking and action on job quality, inclusive growth, productivity, skills and new forms of innovation.   

Given the challenges the UK now faces, the industrial strategy represents a small and rather faltering step. At some point, rather more radical thinking may need to be entertained.

Professor Ewart Keep is director of SKOPE at Oxford University

Tough new intervention trigger for FE Commissioner

The FE commissioner has new powers to trigger formal intervention, under tougher plans to enter colleges before they hit rock bottom.

According to a new intervention policy, published by the Department for Education this morning, Richard Atkins will now be able to take formal action at a college that isn’t yet failing, but where a “diagnostic assessment” has revealed it is in danger of doing so.

Previously intervention could be triggered in one of three ways: a college being rated ‘inadequate’ by Ofsted rating, or ‘inadequate’ for financial health or control by the Education and Skills Funding Agency, or for failing to meet the DfE’s minimum performance standards.

This new “escalation” process – which will happen before a college hits one of these markers for failure – will occur where “action is required quickly, which is likely to include leadership and governance change”.

The new trigger and diagnostic assessments are both part of the FE commissioner’s expanded remit, first announced by the education secretary Justine Greening in July.

He told FE Week last month that he wanted to do more work helping those colleges that repeatedly receive grade threes, to prevent their performance from sliding further.

The new policy sets out in detail the process that Mr Atkins and his team will follow when intervening at failing colleges.

Mr Atkins and his team will now be involved with colleges at an earlier stage.

Any college with a grade three overall, a grade four for apprenticeships, or which is in early intervention for financial health, could be subject to a two-day visit.

Through these diagnostic assessments Mr Atkins and his team will “review the college’s financial and educational performance, self-assessment and improvement plans”, meet with senior leaders and others at the colleges, and “assess the capacity and capability of leadership and governance to see improvement through”, according to the new policy.

There are three possible outcomes from a diagnostic assessment: endorsement of the college’s approach to improving, an action plan for recovery, or escalation to formal intervention.

The last option is only expected to be triggered in “exceptional cases”, where, for example, “the college is not taking action, or has no realistic plan to improve areas which have been flagged for concern by Ofsted or the EFSA” or “existing leadership and/or governance at the college is an impediment to securing necessary improvement”.

There will also be a new principals’ reference group and a college improvement board, both of which are designed to improve accountability, oversight and coordination.

As previously reported by FE Week, the FE commissioner will also oversee a £15 million strategic college improvement fund, to focus on quality improvement at colleges with an Ofsted grade three or four.

In an exclusive interview with FE Week to mark one year since he started as commissioner, Mr Atkins denied that his new remit was stepping on other organisations’ toes.

He also outlined his long-term ambition for “around 80 to 85 per cent” of colleges to be rated as ‘good’ or ‘outstanding’.

Industrial strategy confirms delay to adult education budget devolution

The devolution of the adult education budget has been delayed by a year.

In its industrial strategy white paper the government announced today that it “will devolve the adult education budget to mayoral areas in 2019”.

The former Skills Funding Agency previously said that seven regions were supposed to get devolved AEB budgets from August 2018. London was to join from August 2019.

The areas were Cambridgeshire and Peterborough, Greater Manchester, Liverpool City, Sheffield City, Tees Valley, West Midlands, and the West of England.

A Department of Education spokesperson did not deny that the white paper confirmed that the AEB devolution would be delayed.

“As outlined in the Industrial Strategy, the adult education budget will be devolved to mayoral areas in 2019,” she said.

“We want to make sure that Mayoral Combined Authorities have enough time for this transition, and we are working with them to make sure that we get it right. This is a significant move to give local areas more freedom to spend their adult education budget where it is needed the most.”

The DfE previously refused to comment back in July on whether its own timetable for AEB devolution delivery was still viable, after an FE Week investigation found that regional deals were likely to be delayed beyond the planned 2018-19 delivery date.

The paper said that local industrial strategies will “be long-term, based on clear evidence, and aligned to the national industrial strategy”.

“This might include addressing skills issues, improving infrastructure, harnessing the potential of world-class science and innovation, supporting new high-value businesses, or identifying leading sectors to inform the development of deals,” it continued.

These strategies will establish new ways of working between national and local leaders in both the public and private sectors, with colleges as key players.

“Universities, colleges and other local institutions will be key, as will an approach that is responsive to both local and global market conditions to provide greater long-term certainty,” it said.

“We will prioritise areas with the potential to drive wider regional growth, focusing on clusters of expertise and centres of economic activity.”

Places in England with a mayoral combined authority will have a single strategy, led by the mayor and supported by local enterprise partnerships.

“For parts of the country without a mayor, the development of the strategy will be led by the LEPs.!

Yet in addition to spelling out how LEPs will play a leading role in the devolution process, the same document also said the workings of these business-led regional bodies need to be reviewed.

“While LEPs across the country have played an important role in supporting local growth, feedback suggests that their performance has varied since 2013,” it said.

Mark Dawe, chief executive of the Association of Employment and Learning Providers, called last December for LEPs to have a new contracting process that’s “fair and transparent” if they’re dealing with AEB cash.

This followed an investigation published by the Mail Online, which alleged that LEPs had made more than 270 payments to companies or other projects connected with their own board members, in sums ranging from £13,000 to £1 million.

Conflicts of interest like these are of concern to the sector, as in addition to planned AEB devolution, LEPs already control much of the funds available to FE providers for capital spending.

“We are reviewing the roles and responsibilities of LEPs and will bring forward reforms to leadership, governance, accountability, financial reporting and geographical boundaries,” the strategy said. “We will work with LEPs to set out a more clearly defined set of activities and objectives in early 2018.”

FE Week’s investigation in July this year found that AEB devolution deals were likely to be delayed beyond the planned 2018-19 delivery date because the timetable no longer seems viable for the government.

Over the previous two years, seven combined authorities had agreed devolution deals with the Treasury, which included powers to deliver the AEB, and had elected metro mayors ahead of its scheduled introduction in September next year.

But five of the seven said that while they wanted to deliver on time, they were not confident that the timescale is realistic at the government’s end, given the disruption of various local elections, the EU referendum and the unexpected general election over the past few years.