Transparency data

SLC Board meeting minutes: 26 November 2020

Published 11 June 2021

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)
• Charlotte Moar (CM) Non-Executive Director (by videoconference) (for Items 5.4 to 10.1 only)
• Gary Page (GP) Non-Executive Director (by videoconference)
• Rona Ruthen (RR) Non-Executive Director (by videoconference)
• Stephen Tetlow (ST) Non-Executive Director (by videoconference)
• Andrew Wathey (AW) Non-Executive Director (by videoconference)
• David Wallace (DW) Deputy Chief Executive Officer
• Jacqui Smillie (JS) Chief Financial Officer (by videoconference)
• Gary Womersley (GW) Company Secretary

1.2 Also in attendance

• Paul Kett (PK) DfE (by videoconference) (for Items 4 to 5.4 only)
• Sinead O’Sullivan (SOS) DfE (by videoconference)
• Ailsa Harris (AH) DfE (by videoconference)
• Meana Alneami (MA) DfE (observer, by videoconference)
• Gareth Allen (GA) Scottish Government (by videoconference)
• Chris Williams (CW) Welsh Government (by videoconference)
• Richard Leeman (RL) NI Government (by videoconference)
• Stephen Campbell (SC) CIO
• Derek Ross (DR) Executive Director of Operations
• Bernice McNaught (BMC) Executive Director of Repayments and Customer Compliance
• Morven Spalding (MS) Executive Director, People (by videoconference)
• Helen Bogan (HB) Planning & Governance Manager (observer, by videoconference)
• Stuart Brydson (SB) Board Secretary (Secretariat)
• Nathan Glancy (NC) Business Manager to the Office of the CEO (for Item 5.1 only)
• Adam Treslove (AT) Head of Corporate Affairs (for Items 5.1 and 5.3 only) (by videoconference)
• Angela Donaldson (AD) Head of Finance (for Item 5.2 only) (by videoconference)
• Alan Balanowski (AB) Head of Compliance and Risk Management (for Item 5.4 only) (by videoconference)
• Mark Cassidy (MC) Head of Estates and Sourcing (for Item 5.5 only)
• David Thomson (DT) Head of Operations – Darlington & CEM Business Lead (for Item 7.1 only) (by videoconference)
• Katherine Maguire (KM) Business Improvement Manager / Self-Service Lead (for Item 7.1 only) (by videoconference)
• Marcus Gavin (MG) UX Lead – Service Design (for Item 7.1 only) (by videoconference)
• Andrea Cassells (AC) UX Designer – Service Design (for Item 7.1 only) (by videoconference)
• Kevin White (KW) Salesforce Senior Programme Architect (for Item 7.1 only) (by videoconference)

1.3 Apologies

• Sinead Gallagher (SG) Welsh Government

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, and especially HB and MA who were attending today as observers though noting that HB was not due to start until 3 December.

PL noted that the meeting was being conducted by videoconference today and usual arrangements would apply in terms of use of the chat function and electronic hand raising.

Apologies had been received from SG and were noted.

There were no declarations of interest.

4. Chair Update

4.1 Update from the Chair on relevant matters

PL noted the Government’s Spending Review which had been announced by the Chancellor the day before the Board meeting and included details of a public sector pay freeze. PL and PS were due to have a meeting with the DfE Director of Finance to discuss further detail of the DfE spending review envelope. PK noted that the DfE spending review had been hard fought and that it would take time to work through the outcome details, including Evolve.

PL observed that an HE Policy Strategy Landscape Workshop had been arranged for Board members on 25 January 2021.

*

5. Strategic items

5.1 CEO Report

*

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

*

*

*

5.2 Interim Performance Pack

ST noted that in Lens 1, the Student Finance England Core Backlog was 60,000 tasks above the same time last year. DR explained that the gap represented around two weeks of work and that this was due to COVID-19

ST noted the customer effort and satisfaction scores in Lens 2 and questioned whether SLC were making telephone contact too easy, rather than encouraging other communication channels. DW explained that given we don’t currently provide alternative means of contact, and in the absence of effective self-service channels, then yes, we do currently make it easy for customers to telephone us.

ST also noted that in Lens 2 it was good to see the customer service experience levels running high, although these were notably lower for Operations.

PS noted that SLC was ‘mid leap’ on the customer experience reporting.

*

MCC and GP noted that in Lens 2, repayer satisfaction score was low and MCC questioned how SLC collects these scores. DW explained that the data is survey based and that this is collected online and while it will be collected directly form Salesforce in the future, it is not yet done so. BMC noted that it is only the 10% of customers who need to contact SLC that are surveyed. The number one reason that they are in contact is an account balance issue between SLC, HMRC and the employer, so this would inevitably be a group more inclined to have concerns about their experience.

*

PS commented that the RPOD Committee had a keen eye on attrition and furthermore that the COVID-19 Blended Working Update paper was attached to the Board papers.

PL noted the high number of open complaints in Lens 2 and that this had been due to the policy of COVID-19 work prioritisation. DW explained that we should be back within the fifteen days SLA by end of January and that this was one of the items being tracked at the regular incident management meetings.

Board noted the CEO Report.

*

5.3 CFO Report

*

JS introduced the CFO Report.

AD noted that it was helpful to see the central adjustments unwinding as forecasts had been reducing in some areas.

*

PK noted that DfE were under pressure across all budgets and that they were managing finance risks tightly with recruitment controls having been put in place. PK noted that it was important that SLC Finance continue to scrutinise forecasts and actuals and ensure effective control. PL noted that detailed and close working with DfE was required to maximise the spend within the SLC budget.

JS noted the sensitivities around the admin spend in particular and confirmed that if there was going to be an underspend, it would be flagged to DfE. JS assured that admin spend was being closely monitored and that Finance were challenging the business regularly on latest numbers and forecasts for remainder of the year. PK noted that it was important for DfE to have visibility of any risk, and JS agreed. SOS noted that notwithstanding the discussion, SLC was in a considerably improved position compared to previous years.

Board noted the CFO Report.

*

5.4 Annual Review of Risk

JS introduced the Annual Review of Risk and noted that the ELT had discussed risk appetite in the previous week.

At this point CM joined the meeting.

AB advised that the SLC risk appetite statement has been updated and was being presented for approval. A new methodology was being used which is aligned to recently issued guidance by central government (HMT Orange Book). This meant that the overall company composite position was now supported by a series of risk appetites, set an individual risk category level. AB further advised that the company position was proposed to remain as ‘Cautious’ and that the wording in the risk appetite statement had been updated to specify that it is a composite of nine underlying risk category appetites.

*

GP questioned the Security risk being ‘Cautious’ rather than ‘Minimal’. SC advised that ‘Cautious’ reflects a strong approach to both compliance and protecting the company whilst being open to creative solutions. An example of this would be through COVID-19 where a hard-line view to security risk would have slowed down enabling home working and hindered delivery of critical services. A more flexible approach was adopted which meant taking on some more risk but adding additional controls at the back end.

CM noted that Reputational Risk was not mentioned and that she would like to see that included. ST agreed. PS noted that DW and his Corporate Affairs team have the management of reputation running through everything that SLC does. AB advised that in the Treasury Orange Book risk framework, reputational risk is not treated as a category in its own right as it is seen as a potential outcome of all risks. This means that each risk must be formally assessed for reputational impact and that this highlights how seriously SLC treats this as a risk.

RR asked how the risk positions were measured in practice and what oversight the Board has. AB explained that the paper represented a line in the sand and that it would be important for the Board to agree on a start point and then what the risk tolerances were.

SD commented that the risks seemed to be internally focussed when, in his view, the biggest risk is political. PK noted that the DfE risk headline was cautious and that it had informed some of the discussions around COVID-19.

PL proposed some more work on this item and requested that AB work with CM and MCC to review and report back to the Board in February.

ACTION: AB to meet with CM and MCC to review the SLC Risk Appetite Statement and report back to the February Board.

Board noted the Annual Review of Risk.

*

5.5 Application Cycle Review 2020/21

*

PS introduced the Application Cycle Review 2020/21.

DR noted that during the 2020/21 application cycle there had been a focus on ensuring an ongoing service delivery for the assess to pay service, prioritising the management of payments to students and education providers. When forecasting demand there had been a degree of uncertainty. As of 16 November 2020, new student applications for SFE were 6.6% higher than forecast, which had stretched capacity throughout the cycle. Whereas there would usually be one application volume reforecast carried out, there had been four so far this year, with informal reforecasting being carried out every month. AW noted that in relation to forecasting, Northumbria University had not noticed any difference in application levels until the second wave of clearing when they saw an additional 6% of applications.

DR explained that a key priority had been managing the wellbeing of staff in the face of the threat posed by the COVID-19 pandemic. There had been a focus on consideration around homeworking, staff who were shielding, and childcare issues.

DR commented that when managing the remote workforce, the two main levers had been adherence and productivity. Shrinkage for sickness and holidays had been lower than normal and, in addition, there had been extra capacity with staff reassigned from collections work. A subsequent challenge of the transition to home working focused on the ability of systems and technology to cope with the increased demand.

SC agreed that it had been a challenge to allow everything to continue as normal, as SLC had not been set up for staff working remotely. The transition to homeworking was accomplished in a 4-week period from 23 March. This was delivered by Technology Group working with Business Continuity and other departments across the organisation.

MC noted that the initial inability of staff to work from home had necessitated a two week pause in service. On reflection it was clear that this ‘firebreak’ had been necessary to allow for the planning and technology changes which had been essential to restoring capacity and maximising the service received by applicants.

AW explained that in terms of lessons learned, it may be useful if universities could provide application data to SLC in the same way that the provide it to OFS, DfE and UCAS. CM agreed that there are partner organisations that SLC should work closely with. DW agreed, noting his recent meeting with the Chief Executive of Universities UK which was being put on a regular footing as would existing meetings with UCAS and UUK.

RR noted that the changes caused by the pandemic had been handled well. RR questioned the different definitions of application which had caused different statistics, depending on the source office. PL commented that he would welcome a view from SOS on this matter. SOS explained that whilst SLC data is driven by operational delivery needs, DfE data is published in applications through UCAS. In terms of doing more on this particular area, DfE did not currently have the resource to undertake this.

RR requested further information on the impact of working from home, and possible return to the office. PL noted that this subject had been the focus of the RPODC meeting yesterday and would be covered further by AW.

*

MCC noted that it would be useful to know about any return on non-investment during the pandemic. There may be work that SLC stopped doing that would provide capacity to recycle. PS commented that there was a myriad of learnings as a result of the pandemic period and that these are being worked through systematically as part of Evolve.

ST noted that the report could benefit from reframing the language around the provision of continuity of customer service. PS noted this point and explained that DW would be leading further focus on the customer perspective.

PS concluded by noting that the team had worked hard during the pandemic period but that no team could keep this level of intensity going indefinitely. PL noted congratulations and appreciation to the team.

PL suggested that Ian Ferguson, DfE Non-Executive Director, may wish to take this paper at a DfE ARC meeting as a lessons learned item. PS agreed and PL asked CM to arrange.

Board noted the Application Cycle Review 2020/21.

*

6. Statutory reports

6.1 Modern Slavery Statement

GW introduced the Modern Slavery Statement and explained that there was no prescribed format for the report, but as with previous years SLC had adopted the Home Office template.

MCC noted the new SLC technology partners and requested confirmation that the statement covered offshore partners. SC confirmed that the partners were all tier one IT service providers and that there was no sub-contracting. GW noted that the statement covered the past period and that offshore partners could be specifically mentioned in the statement next year.

Board approved the Modern Slavery Statement.

7. Deep Dive

7.1 Customer Engagement Management (CEM) Self Service Update

*

BMC introduced the Customer Engagement Management (CEM) Self Service Update, noting that CEM was part of Evolve. CEM would provide a digital and frictionless service to the customer using the availability of integrated data and the capabilities of the Salesforce system.

*

There followed a presentation and demonstration of the new format for the customer self-service capability and the use of webchat and chatbots.

SD noted his passion for mass adoption of new technology and questioned how this would be achieved for CEM. BMC agreed that there was further work to be done on promoting self-service and reducing customer contact.

MCC questioned what would happen if a customer using CEM then opted to move to a live agent but there was no agent available. BMC noted that further work was due re such questions.

RR noted that in addition to live chat there was also an option for conversational contact, as also used by WhatsApp. RR questioned how feedback would be collected once CEM had been rolled out. KM explained that Google Analytics would be used to collect data and DT confirmed that this would provide case reason analysis.

CM wanted to know how CEM would work for sponsors. AC advised that CEM would also be available for sponsors and DT explained that it would be possible for students to give access to limited parts of their account information to sponsors for access in CEM.

PS noted that CEM was ground-breaking for SLC and that the teams have worked well to get us to this position. PS explained though that even with the adoption of digital solutions, SLC will always provide a telephone contact option as this was expected of a public body with customers who may have accessibility issues.

Board welcomed and noted the Customer Engagement Management (CEM) Self Service Update.

*

8. Papers for Noting / Reports from Committees

8.1 ARC Chair Report

CM introduced the ARC Chair Report.

CM noted that GIAA had made good progress on their plan for this year and were focussing on maximising value.

*

Board noted the ARC Chair Report.

8.2 RPODC Chair Report

AW noted the items that had been covered at the RPODC meeting which had taken place the previous day. There had been a COVID-19 Blended Working Update paper, which was also attached to the Board papers. The paper and its ongoing outcomes would shape future working practices, including staff aspirations for more home working. PL noted how important the People agenda would be going forward.

*

9. Minutes of Previous Meetings and Matters Arising

9.1 Minutes of the meeting held on 29 October 2020

The minutes of the SLC Board meeting held on 29 October 2020 were approved as a true and accurate record subject to agreed changes.

9.2 Matters arising from previous meetings

The matters arising document was approved as accurate and no further questions were asked.

10. Any Other Business

There was no other business.

10.1 Date of Next Meeting

10:00 am, Thursday 25 February 2021, The Boardroom, 100 Bothwell Street, Glasgow G2 7JD or remotely.

There being no other business, the Chair thanked everyone for attending and the meeting closed at 1:20 pm.