Transparency data

SLC Board meeting minutes June 2026

Updated 13 August 2026

1. Attendees  

1.1 Present 

* Gary Page (GP) - Chair  

• Chris Larmer (CL) - Chief Executive Officer  

• Natasha Toothill (NT) - Non-Executive Director  

• Mandy Beech (MB) – Non-Executive Director 

• Margaret Ollerenshaw (MO) - Non-Executive Director  

• Stephen Marston (SM) - Non-Executive Director  

• David Wallace (DW) - Deputy Chief Executive Officer 

• Gary Womersley (GW) - Company Secretary  

1.2 Also in attendance 

• Anne Rimmer (AR) - DfE (by videoconference) 

• Courtney Brightwell (CB) – DfE (by videoconference) 

• Victoria Bowman (VB) – Scottish Government (by videoconference) 

• Chris Williams (CW) - Welsh Government (by videoconference) 

* Jonathan Ashe (JA) – Department for the Economy NI (by videoconference) 

• Jonathan O’Callaghan (JO) – Department for the Economy NI (by videoconference) 

• Jason Dunham (JD) – CIO  

• Jackie Currie (JC) – Executive Director, Customer Operations 

• Nauman Dar (ND) – Executive Director, Change, Data and Repayments 

• Kath Moore (KM) – Chief Digital and Data Officer 

• Derek Ross (DR) - Executive Director, HE and FE Reform  

• Alan Balanowski (AB) – Risk Director (for item 6.1) (by videoconference)  

• Stuart Brydson (SB) - Board Secretary (Secretariat) 

• Adam Treslove (AT) - Head of Corporate Affairs (for Item 6.1 only) (by videoconference)  

• Nicholas McDermott (NMC) – Chief of Staff (for item 5.1 only) 

• Frances Moore (FM) – Senior Business Manager (by videoconference) 

• Margaret McMullen (MMC) – Director of Finance (for item 6.2 only) (by videoconference) 

• Scott McEwan (SMC) - Financial Performance and Analysis Manager (for Item 6.2) (by videoconference) 

• Steven Darling (SD) - Director of Customer Strategy (by videoconference for Items 6.1, 8.1 and 8.2) 

• Madeleine Firth (MF) - Head of People Strategy and Consulting (by videoconference) (Items 6.1 and 7.1) 

• Stephen Baker (SBA) - Director of Policy, Product and Customer Resolutions (by videoconference for Items 8.1 to 8.4) 

• Keving O’Connor (KOC) - Head of Repayments and Customer Service (by videoconference for Items 8.1 and 8.2) 

• Rena McIntosh (RMC) - Manager, Independent Assessor Liaison Office (for Items 8.1 and 8.2) 

• Susan Bradford (SBR) - Independent Assessor (by videoconference for Items 8.1 and 8.2) 

• Hugh Morrison (HM) - Business Services Manager (by videoconference for item 8.3) 

2. Apologies 

Audrey McColl SLC 

Janette Campbell SLC 

Gillian Brydie SLC  

Patrick Curry DfE 

Lorna Caldwell SAAS 

Christopher O’Neill SLC 

3. 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.          

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

GP welcomed everyone to the meeting.  Apologies from JCA, AMC, GB, PC, LC, and CO’N were noted.  

Declarations of Interest 

SM noted that he had been appointed to the Board of London South Bank University from August. 

5. Chair Update 

5.1 Update from the Chair on relevant matters 

GP noted that the Treasury Select Committee had written to SLC, and CL had responded on 29 May.  The letter was attached to the June Board papers. 

GP highlighted his engagement activity since the April Board meeting, including regular discussions with PC and AR; an induction session with SAAS; an introductory meeting with Anna Brychan MS, Cabinet Secretary for Education and the Welsh Language, and Cefin Campbell MS, Deputy Minister for Skills and Tertiary Education, on 25 June; and Stuart McMinnies, Chair of the DfE Audit and Risk Committee. During an introductory discussion with the Minister of State for Skills, Baroness Jacqui Smith, she expressed an interest in visiting SLC at Clyde Place, which is being arranged for August.   

* 

GP had recently attended SLC ‘teach-ins’ on Repayment Plans, and the Loan Book, and yesterday he had been given a site tour at the Darlington office.   

GP noted that Catherine Topley had resigned as CEO of SAAS to take up a position as CEO of Food Standards Scotland.     

GP invited AR to comment on arrangements in light of the resignation of the Prime Minister.  AR explained that there would be no significant policy decisions taken during the new Labour leadership election process.  The DfE team had prepared Day One briefing arrangements in the event of a new Secretary of State for Education or responsible Minister. AR noted that delivery of major policy programmes, including the Lifelong Learning Entitlement (LLE), had progressed beyond the point at which they could realistically be paused or reversed, and would therefore continue irrespective of ministerial changes. 

6. Strategic items 

6.1 CEO Report 

SD and MF joined the meeting.  

CL introduced the CEO Report, highlighting the key areas of focus under live management.   

Enable  

ND explained that the project had moved into delivery, the Transformation Delivery Office had been mobilised, and the DfE Major Project Gateway Zero assurance review had been completed with an amber rating.  The inaugural Government Shareholder Enable Board (GSEB) meeting on 3 June had been primarily introductory in nature, providing members with an overview of the Enable programme, including its strategic objectives, business case, anticipated costs and benefits, and key risks.   

* 

* 

Customer Delivery Update 

JCU explained that there were a small number of profile issues that had been driving demand.  There had been a strong start to the academic year despite the later launch date, ready to pay volumes were ahead on the same time last year, the DSA journey time had reduced, and the CSAT score was improving.  Repayments had remained stable, with collections higher than this time last year.  Operational focus prioritised applications, and vulnerable customers.  

*  

In response to a question from the Board, JCU highlighted that live chat was now 40% of contact, and that Customers were leveraging the digital channels available.  CL added that this was a very strong customer delivery year to date.   

Customer Remediation 

SD noted that, following a ministerial decision, SLC had corrected around 25,000 accounts affected by the Weekend Course issue.  This substantial operational undertaking had been delivered whilst maintaining steady ‘business as usual’ operational performance.  Although the activity had now been scaled down, a specialist team was in place to manage the residual work.   

SD explained that communications had been issued to around 22,000 customers who had been affected by the Variable Interest Rate (VIR) issues.   

* 

* 

* 

Responding to comments from the Board, SD noted that:  the content of the VIR customer communications had been agreed with HMRC and DfE, and made the next steps clear; SLC expected to deal with most of the VIR complaints, except in cases related directly to HMRC, in which case there was a handover process; further engagement with shareholders would be considered, as would continued reporting of customer issues into JQC. 

*   

* 

VB left the meeting. 

Performance 

It was suggested that the reintroduction of key portfolio updates in the CPD would be useful. 

ACTION: SLC CEO’s office and Transformation teams to consider best format for key change programme updates for Board, with Enable to be added for July Board. 

In summary GP noted that the Board took assurance that the key issues, although challenging, were being well managed. 

6.2 CFO Report 

SCM joined the meeting.   

FY2026-27 

MMC introduced the CFO Report noting that the budget confirmation received from DfE on 29 May had allowed completion of the internal budget process.  MMC highlighted that budget pressures were being absorbed from full-year savings from Catalyst.   

* 

Annual Report and Accounts (ARA) 2025-26 

MMC noted that the ARA had been approved by ARC at their 26 June meeting and that they had recommended it for approval by the Board.  The Board were due to meet on 7 July to review the ARA and there had been no emerging issues since the ARC meeting.   

In summary GP noted that the Board took assurance that SLC finances were understood and well managed.  GP and the Board commended the SLC team on the work that had been carried out, in conjunction with DfE and the NAO team to produce the ARA.   

SMC left the meeting. 

6.3 Business Planning 

7. Reports from Committees 

7.1 RemCo Update, RemCo Annual Report, RemCo Terms of Reference, Remuneration Report 

MF joined the meeting. 

MO introduced the RemCo Update noting that the meeting had taken place on 26 May.  There had also been an in depth look at Employee Engagement, where the Committee had noted the importance of senior leadership visibility at Darlington and Hillington, a discussion on the annual pay remit, and the review and approval of ELT performance, PRP, and objectives.  The Committee had approved the Remuneration Report and had recommended it to the Board for approval.   

* 

The Board approved the RemCo Annual Report, the RemCo ToR and Remuneration Report. 

MF left the meeting. 

7.2 ARC Update, Risk and Compliance Policy 

GP introduced the ARC Update on behalf of JCA noting that the meeting had taken place on 26 June.  Internal Audit had given Substantial assurance on both the Health and Safety Audit, and the Cyber Security and IT monitoring audits.   

* 

* 

GP explained that the Risk and Compliance Policy, and the Risk Appetite Statement had been approved by ARC and were recommended to the Board for approval.  An amendment to the ARC ToR, to allow GP to act as an ARC member in the event that a Non-Executive Director absence left the Committee non-quorate, had also been approved. 

The Board approved the Risk and Compliance Policy and the Risk Appetite Statement, and also the amendment to the ARC ToR.   

7.3 TOC Update 

VB joined the meeting. 

TT introduced the TOC Update noting that the meeting had taken place on 15 June.  The Committee had discussed Enable, DSFS, LLE, and Tallyman, and heard that the Transformation Delivery Office had successfully been mobilised.   

* 

TT highlighted that the SME resource risk had been discussed at TOC.  CL agreed that an update would be discussed further at the July Board meeting through the Perfom, Reform and Transform paper and that it would be helpful for the Board to agree the related risk appetite.    

The Board noted the TOC Update. 

8. Directors’ Reports 

8.1 Complaints and Appeals 

SBA, SD, KOC, SD, RMC, and SBR joined the meeting. 

SBA introduced Complaints and Appeals, noting that whilst there had been a reduction in the numbers of Apply to Pay (A2P) complaints, the number of Repayments complaints had risen.  In terms of processing times and meeting SLA, it had been one of the strongest results reported in recent years.  Key drivers for complaints in A2P had been issues with pre-assessment residency, DSA supplier, and DSA escalations.  Numbers of Repayments complaints had been affected by students feeling the pressure of cost-of-living increases and customers not being satisfied with or understanding their terms and conditions.  AR thanked SBA and the team for all of their hard work and encouraged shareholders to be involved in the internal SLC Complaints and Appeals review that was due to take place. 

In response to questions from the Board SBA noted that: the Complaints and Appeals system was being updated as part of the move to Salesforce; AI-generated appeals had been noticed; KOC would be taking over this area for SLC and would take forward the insights from shareholders as part of the review, along with the effort to reduce case timescales.   

In summary, GP thanked SBA for his work in Complaints and Appeals, noting the reduction in the number of A2P complaints year-on-year.  He welcomed the increased productivity of the team, but noting that ongoing issues, like the use of AI, may mean that future workload challenges would be significant.  The Board noted the Complaints and Appeals Report. 

8.2 Independent Assessors Annual Report 

SBR introduced the Independent Assessors Annual Report noting that, in her opinion, SLC performed well.  The positive news was that due to increased in-house capacity, the Independent Assessors had been able to deal with significantly more cases in the past year.  The team had upheld a smaller proportion of appeals than the previous year, and this attested to the quality of the internal appeals team.  SBR highlighted: an increase in residency appeals; complaints related to IT infrastructure, where customers wrongly continue to receive system-generated correspondence; cases where the customer feels that the ex-gratia payment level that can be given by the Independent Assessors is not enough.  There were recommendations set out at the end of the report. 

* 

In response to questions from the Board SBR noted that: residency cases were often where the family had moved overseas and then come back to the UK before the child is due to start study, without understanding that three years residency is required; fraud prosecution was not within the Independent Assessors’ remit. 

In relation to Independent Assessors recruitment, AR explained that there had been a significant number of applications from highly qualified and experienced candidates.  The recruitment was on track and progressing well. 

DW noted that SLC had provided responses to the Independent Assessors’ recommendations in the report, noting that, as is standard practice, the report and SLC’s response to the recommendations would be published.    

The Board noted the Independent Assessors Annual Report.  

SD, KOC, RMC, and SBR left the meeting. 

8.3 Provider Interface and Performance 

HM joined the meeting. 

DR introduced Provider Interface and Performance noting that there was a relatively small but consistent number of providers with known issues with performance.   

* 

AR noted that, last week, DfE had announced that from the 2028-29 academic year, higher education providers delivering courses through franchise arrangements would be required to register with OfS where they have 300 or more franchised students.  This was to protect public money.  AR had recently had a productive meeting with the new joint CEOs of OfS, which had included a discussion on how they could best use SLC data.   

* 

JOC left the meeting. 

This was a multi-dimensional problem, but the focus had to be on the protection of public money.   

* 

* 

In summary GP noted that the conversation today had been necessary and useful.  There was a shared position between SLC and the shareholders, and OfS was recognised as a critical partner.  The Board understood the limitations of SLC within its framework, and also its responsibility to the taxpayers.  The Board noted the Provider Interface and Performance Report. 

HM left the meeting. 

8.4 Reputational Risk 

DW introduced Reputational Risk, noting that, although the subject had been touched on at the 26 June ARC, members had expressed an interest in a fuller discussion via the main Board.  The paper was intended to illustrate why reputational risk was seen as important, and that it linked to the SLC objectives of being a trusted delivery partner, and being a great place to work, where colleagues are proud to deliver SLC’s purpose.  Whilst reputational risk for SLC was currently elevated, the organisation had made demonstrable progress in strengthening its approach to managing this.   

NMC left the meeting. 

In response to questions from the Board, AT highlighted that: social media was actively monitored on a daily basis, though SLC did not use certain platforms, reflecting Central Government policies and controls;  SLC was working closely with DfE to align its communications on the Lifelong Learning Entitlement (LLE), ensuring customers received clear information on the student finance products and services that would support its delivery against a backdrop of scrutiny on the student funding system; there was an extensive stakeholder programme, working towards protecting SLC’s reputational capital. 

Responding to comments from the Board, DW explained that: SLC did not have a specific reputational risk category, as in line with the HMT Orange Book, reputational risk is best understood as the consequence of how the organisation manages its wider risk profile. 

* 

The board acknowledged the good work being done in respect of Reputational Risk. 

SBA left the meeting. 

SM left the meeting. 

9. Governance 

9.1 Minutes from previous meeting  

The minute of the 30 April 2026 Board meeting was approved as an accurate record.    

9.2 Matters arising from previous meetings 

The matters arising document was approved as accurate.  

10. Any other business 

There was no other business. 

10.1 Date of Next Meeting 

The next meeting was confirmed as being at 16:15 Tuesday 7 July 2026 by Teams, and then 10:00 on Thursday 30 July 2026, by Teams with Executive hosting form the Glasgow Boardroom. 

There being no other business the meeting ended at 13:30