Transparency data

SLC Board meeting minutes 28 February 2022

Updated 3 March 2023

1. Attendees

1.1 Present

• Peter Lauener (PL) - Chair (by videoconference)
• Paula Sussex (PS) - Chief Executive Officer
• Mary Curnock Cook (MCC) - Non-Executive Director (by videoconference)
• Simon Devonshire (SD) - Non-Executive Director (by videoconference)
• Gary Page (GP) - Non-Executive Director (by videoconference)
• Charlotte Moar (CM)- Non-Executive Director (by videoconference)
• Stephen Tetlow (ST) - Non-Executive Director (by videoconference)
• Andrew Wathey (AW) – Non-Executive Director (by videoconference)
• Rona Ruthen (RR) – Non-Executive Director (by videoconference)
• David Wallace (DW) - Deputy Chief Executive Officer
• Audrey McColl (AM) - Chief Financial Officer (by videoconference)
• Gary Womersley (GW) - Company Secretary

1.2 Also in attendance

• Anne Spinali (AS) - DfE (by videoconference)
• Ailsa Harris (AH) - DfE (by videoconference)
• Lauren McNamara (LM) – Scottish Government (by videoconference)
• Chris Williams (CW) - Welsh Government (by videoconference)
• Connor McCarten (CMC) - NI Government (by videoconference)
• Chris Larmer (CL) – Executive Director, Business Operations
• Bernice McNaught (BM) – Executive Director, Repayments & Customer Compliance
• Derek Ross (DR) - Executive Director, Programme Director HE/LE Reform (by videoconference)
• Morven Spalding (MS) - Executive Director, People
• Geoff Layer (GL) Chair of Stakeholder Forum (for item 5 only) (by videoconference)
• Helen Bogan (HB) – Head of Governance and Planning (by videoconference)
• Stuart Brydson (SB) - Board Secretary (Secretariat)
• Nathan Glancy (NG) - Business Manager to the Office of the CEO (for Item 4.1 only) (by videoconference)
• Alan Balanowski (AB) – Head of Enterprise, Risk and Compliance (for items 4.1, 6.1 and 6.2 only) (by videoconference)
• Adam Treslove (AT) - Head of Corporate Affairs (for Item 4.1 only) (by videoconference)
• Scott McEwan (SMC) – Financial Performance and Analysis Manager (for item 4.2 and 4.3 only) (by videoconference)
• David Thomson (DT) - Head of Operational Resource Planning (for item 6.5 only) (by videoconference)
• Steven Darling (SDA) – Director of Customer Experience (for item 6.6 only) (by videoconference)

1.3 Apologies

• Paul Kett (DfE)
• Sinead Gallagher (Welsh Government)
• Laura Irvine (Department for the Economy, NI)
• Stephen Campbell (CIO)

2. FOI Notice

Where asterisks (*) appear, these sections have been excluded from the minutes before placing on the website as the subject under discussion falls within one or more of the exemptions contained in Part II of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and can be reasonably withheld.

3. Chairman’s Opening Remarks / Directors’ Matters / Declarations of Interest

PL welcomed everyone to the meeting.

Apologies were noted from PK, SG, LI and SC.

There were no declarations of interest.

PL noted the restart of Blend, *, and the LLE and HE/FE reform announcements.

4. Strategic items

4.1 CEO Report

CEO Report – February

AT, AB and NG joined the meeting.

PS introduced the CEO Report, noting her key areas of focus.

Service Launches

PS noted the full-time undergraduate services that were being launched on the day of the Board. Substantial efforts had gone into the delivery of services with many due to launch significantly earlier than the previous year.

Blend

PS explained that Blend was restarting on the day of the Board after pausing in December due to the Omicron variant. The restart was taking place against a background of falling Covid cases within the UK and relaxed restrictions. The rollout of Blend was expected to be completed by 30 June 2022, as originally planned.

GP noted that the Blend plans were at the gentler end of what he had seen in other organisations. PS explained that there was an expectation of two days in the office, but that pattern would vary across teams and directorates. She reinforced SLC’s safety first approach and noted that Blend would step up at the end of March when social distancing rules would be reviewed.

* * * * * * *

LLE, HE/FE Reform

AH noted that DfE had announced a suite of HE/FE Reform measures including a consultation on LLE and the Government’s response to the Post Qualification Admissions consultation. DfE’s view was that the package had been well received with stakeholders considering the suite of measures balanced. AS explained that there had been a considerable amount of work to get to this point and that DfE had worked closely with SLC and delivery partners. PL noted that at this stage the reforms applied to England only.

PL noted that a further Board discussion on LLE and HE/FE Reform would be beneficial, with HB noting that a discussion had been scheduled in the workplan for July, though this could be brought forward if necessary.

MCC welcomed the encouraging change of tone evident in the measures and AW noted that the sector response had been warm.

GP asked PS if LLE and HE/FE Reforms implementation would create risk for other SLC projects, given resource and recruitment challenges. Whilst PS was confident that SLC could support LLE with current systems, it was noted that those systems would need significant development and shoring up, and therefore further investment.

DW explained that there were still some significant unknowns in relation to LLE. The SLC Policy and Commissioning team were working with DfE to finalise the New Demand for LLE to enable Discovery to commence in FY22-23. Confirmation of funding for this work, which was separate to the regular annual policy change funding, remained subject to a business case which DfE were progressing. AH confirmed that the extra funding was intended to be available over the spending review period.

DR confirmed that the expectation was that LLE would align with the technology strategy but that there was still a lot of analysis and planning to be done to progress these significant changes.

*

PL noted that a further update on LLE and HE/FE Reforms in the March CEO Report would be beneficial. ACTION: Further update on LLE and HE/FE Reform to be included in the March CEO Report.

Framework Document

CM noted that the SLC Framework Document had not yet been approved. AH noted that the FWD had been sent to HMT with a comply and explain form setting out why it necessarily diverged from the HMT templates. AH was hopeful that the new FWD would be approved for the start of the new FY.

*

Evolve

RR noted the reference to a number of projects being mentioned in the CEO and CFO Reports that would not be progressed due to funding. BMC explained that SLC had been through an exercise to determine what the capacity and funding would allow us to deliver. This would not stop in flight work and the expectation was that some work may be rescoped as the year progressed. Additionally, the new strategic procurement partner would provide further capacity. In terms of risk, DW explained that a MoSCoW prioritisation had been carried out, and that SLC was taking a pragmatic approach.

The Board took assurance from the CEO Report

AT, AB and NG left the meeting.

4.2 CFO Report

SMC joined the meeting.

AMC explained that after the movements in the forecast resulting from the November deep dive reviews, during December, the Executive team had agreed a series of remedial actions to bring the forecast overspend in line with budget.

*

PL noted the good work that had gone into tightening the budget this year. AH highlighted that a lot of good work had been done on Admin and that SLC was in a good position.

CM noted the Programme overspend. AH explained that there had been regular conversations with SLC and that while DfE should be able to support the position, they would need to have a clear view of the overspend, including the rationale and actions taken, to give formal approval

*

The Board took assurance from the CFO Report.

4.3 Business Planning

Draft Budget FY 2022-23

AMC introduced the Draft Budget FY 2022-23 noting the steps SLC had taken since the CSR submission, and the separate bid for LLE. AMC noted the gap in the operational budget and the considerable work SLC had done already to prioritise activities, highlighting that SLC needed more funding and that DfE was aware of this pressure.

AMC highlighted the activity that had been agreed as vital by the ELT, including a sustainable BAU technology budget to underpin robust and resilient IT systems. The current budget pressure was predominantly in Programme, and included inflationary pressures, Salesforce licences, and delayed Evolve benefits.

PL explained that the finalised budget would come back to the March Board meeting.

CM noted that although the paper was clear, it would benefit from highlighting that SLC was dealing with more students, and with more complicated applications. CM also highlighted the impact of the new repayments assumptions of the HE/FE Reforms, and how much more SLC may be able to collect, noting that investing in SLC would deliver cashable savings.

ST noted the clarity of the paper but questioned what level of efficiencies had been factored in to reduce costs. AMC explained that Evolve cashable benefits had been built into the submission.

PL strongly supported the point in the paper that any central adjustments applied to Programme for FY2022-23 would be smaller and would be allocated at Directorate level.

PL noted that the Board were taking assurance that the approach had been well planned.

SMC left the meeting.

Draft outline three-year Corporate Plan FY 2022-25

PS introduced the Draft outline three-year Corporate Plan FY 2022-23, noting that she had worked closely with DW and HB on its production. PS explained the top down approach of the Corporate Plan and the bottom up approach of the Annual Business Plan, with the Quarterly Business Review cycle providing the foundation for the Annual Plan.

HB explained that this draft version of the Corporate Plan had been written for Board members and that there would be a change of tone in the final document, which would be presented at the March Board meeting subject to the budget being finalised. HB noted feedback from Board members would be factored into the final document.

The Board made a number of comments on what they would like to see highlighted (use of data, ongoing contract management, focus on repayments, SLC’s cost base) and how the final document should be framed in terms of customer outcomes.

HB explained that this was the first time that the Corporate Plan and the Business Plan would be combined, and that this approach had been agreed with PL and AH. SLC would work with AH and colleagues to ensure that the Devolved Administrations were content as there would be a tight turnaround in getting the document signed off and then published in April.

The Board noted the Draft outline three-year Corporate Plan FY 2022-23.

Draft outline Annual Business Plan FY 2022-23

PS introduced the Draft outline Annual Business Plan FY 2022-23.

CM asked how clear SLC was on policy simplification, and if the shareholders had agreed to it and, secondly, on the process for managing red risks. DW explained that the asks were clear and that while some progress had been made, the LLE changes would provide a further opportunity.

PL noted that whilst he recognised that the budgets were still moving, it would be beneficial to sign off a set of plans with the budget at the March Board meeting.

The Board noted the Draft outline Annual Business Plan FY 2022-23.

5. External Partner Reports

GL joined the meeting.

GL introduced the Stakeholder Forum Report, highlighting the major transformation of SLC that had continued despite the COVID-19 pandemic. The Stakeholder Forum had also adapted its working practices through this period, resulting in monthly meetings. GL also pointed out the success in changing the fees payments system from three instalments to two.

AW noted that the Stakeholder Forum was now 12 years old, he and MCC being veterans of the forum. The report from GL showed the continuing high-level engagement within the sector.

*

The Board noted and welcomed the Stakeholder Forum Report, thanking GL for his valuable contribution.

GL left the meeting.

6. Reports From Committees

6.1 ARC Chair Report

AB joined the meeting.

CM introduced the ARC Chair Report noting that Internal Audit and External Audit work was currently on track.

CM noted the 14 new mandatory Government Functional Standards which SLC had self-assessed and that the outputs of the assessment would be noted in the Annual Report and Accounts.

CM explained that there had been a deep dive into Commercial at the January ARC meeting. Assurance on commercial work had been demonstrated by SLC colleagues and was also evident in the two related GIAA audits.

*

6.2 Risk Appetite Statement (RAS)

AB explained that since last year new categories had been added to the RAS, including Governance and Property. The overall Risk Appetite status was cautious.

ST noted that the health and safety risk appetite was considered as minimal and was included within property risk, whereas, in his opinion, this should be averse and not within property.

RR noted that, in her opinion, media interest should be a key reputational risk. Additionally, customer data should be mentioned within the information and security risks.

AB agreed to update the RAS based on feedback and seek final approval. Post meeting note: PL agreed that AB would circulate the updated RAS by correspondence for approval.

The Board noted the ARC Chair Report.

6.3 November RemCo minutes

AW explained that the November RemCo meeting had been reported at the November Board meeting and so this item covered the publication of the meeting minutes.

AW noted that although the success of the pay and grading case had been welcomed, there was now concern over the potential effect of the retail price index and how inflation would erode the living standards of particularly lower paid staff.

AW explained that the March RemCo meeting would include a closed session to cover end of year reviews.

6.4 Evolve Oversight Committee Chair Report

SD introduced the Evolve Oversight Committee Chair Report, noting that the January meeting minutes had now been approved.

SD noted that since the launch of CEM early indicators were that customers were using chatbots. BMC advised that there had been visible use of the new channels, and that goal remained for customers to self-serve.

SD explained that ST would become the new Chair of EOC from 1 April 2022.

The Board noted the Evolve Oversight Chair Report

6.5 Directors’ Report

Annual Application Cycle Forward Look

DT joined the meeting.

CL introduced the Annual Application Cycle Forward Look.

CL noted CM’s earlier question on recruitment and acknowledged the challenges in securing the numbers of frontline staff required. The People team were leading a recovery plan and SLC had also accelerated the Employer of Choice strategy.

CL explained that planning for the new application cycle started with the customer, and SLC was delighted to introduce the new short courses. The Operations change and transformation agenda continued and was a progressive plan. Building on the success of the previous academic cycle, SLC was in a strong position to start the new year, with queues at an all-time low.

CL noted the table at 4.43 which illustrated target outcomes across key areas. The level of improvement would be determined by the success of mitigants, including around recruitment and pay.

MCC noted the significant change challenge and questioned the mood of colleagues. GP noted the changing role of the manager and that the relaunch of Blend would benefit managers from being physically closer to colleagues and reports.

Although the change would be challenging, CL was confident that the right strategies were in place. Colleagues would be involved in the journey and the outcomes would be positive for customers, colleagues and shareholders.

GP referred to the earlier budget paper in relation to the pay case noted that there may not be funding for further increases. CL noted this concern and highlighted that Employer of Choice would be a significant mitigant.

PL highlighted the expected increase in applications and the increase in complexity. DT explained that increased complexity had caused more processing referrals from frontline staff to specialist teams, and that the tenure of staff had a significant impact.

*

PL noted that increased complexity would result in increased processing time and asked for an indication of how many additional days were needed. ACTION: Indication of additional days for complex cases to be reported back to Board.

CL highlighted that the benefits of CEM were included in the resource model and that this enabled Operations to reduce the cost of outsource.

AS left the meeting.

PL noted that the Board took assurance from CL’s report and that although there were significant risks because of the amount of change, the risks had all been identified and were being managed.

The Board noted the Annual Application Cycle Forward Look.

DT left the meeting.

6.6 Repayments Customer Satisfaction

SDA joined the meeting.

DW introduced Repayments Customer Satisfaction, thanking RR for comments she had already provided. DW noted the stubbornly low repayments satisfaction score, explaining the challenge of measuring customer satisfaction when policy, servicing and the product itself may all drive dissatisfaction. DW praised the repayment service being delivered by SLC colleagues and noted that it was not the driver of the low score.

SDA noted that the drive for improved understanding of the repayment customer experience involved detailed touch point mapping and was followed up with quantitative research with over 1000 customers. Research had validated what had been seen in the C-SAT survey, including general confusion around products, and aspects of the terms and conditions being too difficult to understand.

DW explained that the plan was to develop a communications strategy with a specific customer tone of voice, and to replace the current repayments collection system. Additionally, a previously developed customer repayments calculator, which had not been launched, would be reviewed in light of LLE developments. DW noted that budget would be needed to bring these plans to life. RR noted that it would be helpful to understand exactly what was going to be done and what the expected outcomes would be. ST agreed that milestone and deliverables would be beneficial, in addition to a cross check with Evolve deliverables.

AW highlighted that this was a pivotal moment for repayments as SLC moved towards LLE. He noted that applicants would be making affordability assumptions and stepping up to a new level of transparency, potentially facilitated by LLE, would be very welcome.

ST noted that the number of customers who call SLC in relation to repayments seemed to be high.

CM highlighted the good work that had been done already. CM questioned what it would take so that all customers were compliant. DW explained that full compliance was not attainable due to the nature of repayments but that much of the scope for improvement was budget dependent and also dependent on Government appetite.

PL noted that repayments had also been discussed during the earlier Corporate Plan and Business Plan items and it appeared to be the coming issue. PL asked DW and SDA to provide more detail on Repayment Customer Satisfaction once plans had been firmed up.

ACTION: DW and SDA to provide the Board with more detail on Repayment Customer Satisfaction when the work plan is more developed, which was budget dependent.

The Board noted Repayments Customer Satisfaction.

SDA left the meeting.

7. Governance

7.1 Minutes of meeting held on 30 November

The minutes of the SLC Board meeting held on 30 November 2021 were approved as a true and accurate record.

7.2 Matters arising from previous meeting

PL noted that seven matters were marked for closure.

The matters arising document was approved as accurate.

8. Any other business

PL noted that the March Board meeting would be partially physical in the Glasgow Boardroom, with some of the Non-Executive Directors being invited to attend.

8.1 Date of the next meeting

The next meeting was confirmed as being at 10:00 am on Thursday 31 March 2022.

There being no other business the meeting ended at 1:30 pm.