Dear Sir or Madam,

1. Please advise me of the rationale for the 9% repayment level
above the income threshold for student loans. Why was this the
chosen level?

2. Please can you provide me with a copy of documents which discuss
or provide analysis of the various percentages at which loans may
be repaid, including recommendations made to Ministers. Plus any
current documents relating to the same.

3. What is the justification for £15,000 being the income
contingent threshold? Is this scheduled for review, is so by whom
and when.

4. Please provide copies of any analysis or discussion documents
relating to the decision to increase the income threshold from
£10,000 to £15,000, plus any current documents relating to
adjustments of the threshold level.

Yours faithfully,
Dr K J Hamer

Thank you for your recent email. A reply will be sent to you as soon as possible (where a response is required). For information, the departmental standard for correspondence received is that responses should be sent within 15 working days or 20 working days if you are requesting information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

Your correspondence has been allocated the reference number 2008/0091388.

Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills http://www.dius.gov.uk/index.htm

show quoted sections

Dear Dr Hamer,
I am writing in response to your Freedom of Information request dated 2
November 2008.

1 The 9% repayment level for the new system of income contingent student
loans was implemented in 2000, and was set at this level as it was
considered by Ministers to be affordable and reasonable.

2 The proposed new system of income contingent student loans then,
including the proposed 9% repayment level, was subject to a public
consultation in 1999. Details of this consultation, including a summary
and analysis of the responses received, are available at:

[1]http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/consultations/con...

3 The -L-15,000 income threshold, an increase from the initial -L-10,000
income threshold introduced in 2000, was implemented in April 2005, and
proposed in the government's White Paper 'The Future of Higher Education'
in January 2003. The increase was considered by Ministers to make
repayment less burdensome for borrowers. This proposal was subject to a
public consultation in that year. Details of this consultation, including
a summary and analysis of the responses received, are available at:

[2]http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/hegateway/strateg...

During the passage of the Higher Education 2004 Bill, Parliament agreed
that the income threshold for repayment would be increased to -L-15,000
from 2005 (from -L-10,000) and remain at that level until April 2010 when
the intention would be to uprate it annually by the Retail Price Index.

4 In relation to the increase in the income threshold from -L-10,000 to
-L-15,000, you have also requested copies of analysis relating to this
decision.

In relation to the 9% repayment level, you have also requested copies of
documents which discuss or provide analysis of the various percentages at
which loans may be repaid, including recommendations made to Ministers.

This particular information is being withheld under the Freedom of
Information Act 2000. The exemption which applies to this information is
s35(1)(a) which allows for the withholding of information if it relates to
the formulation or development of government policy.

In applying section 35(1)(a), the Act requires that the
Department balances the public interest in withholding the information
against the public interest in disclosing the information. We concluded
that the public interest in maintaining the exemption and not disclosing
the information outweighs the public interest in disclosure in this
instance.

There is a general public interest in disclosure. Knowledge of the way
Government works increases if the information on which decisions have been
made is available. This can lead to public contribution to the policy
making process becoming more effective. There is a general public interest
in being able to see if Ministers are being briefed effectively on the key
areas of policy the Department is taking forward.

Conversely, it is in the public interest that the formulation of
government policy and government decision making can proceed in the
self-contained space needed to ensure that it is done well. Good
government depends on good decision making and this needs to be based on
the best advice available and a full consideration of the options. Without
protecting the thinking space and the ability for Ministers and senior
officials to receive free and frank advice, there is likely to be a
corrosive effect on the conduct of good government, with a risk that
decision making will become poorer and will be recorded inadequately.

It is the Department's view that the public interest in non-disclosure
outweighs the public interest in disclosure in this case. Disclosure of
the withheld information would be likely to have a potentially corrosive
effect on good Government and lead to less fully-informed decision
making. This is not in the public interest. The Department has concluded
that, in this instance, public interest consideration was greater than the
general public interest considerations for disclosure described above.

If you have any queries about this letter, please contact me. Please
remember to quote our reference number in any future communications.

If you are unhappy with the service you have received in relation to your
request and wish to make a complaint or request a review of our decision,
you should write to me within two calendar months of the date of this
letter.

If you are not content with the outcome of your complaint, you may apply
directly to the Information Commissioner for a decision. Generally, the
Information Commissioner cannot make a decision unless you have exhausted
our complaints/review procedure.
Yours sincerely,

David Gregson
STUDENT FINANCE POLICY DIVISION

Your correspondence has been allocated the reference number 2008/0091388.

show quoted sections

Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or
recorded for legal purposes.

References

Visible links
1. http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/consultations/con...
2. http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/hegateway/strateg...

Dear Sir or Madam,

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of
Information reviews.

I am writing to request an internal review of Department for
Innovation, Universities and Skill's handling of my FOI request
'Student Loan Repayment criteria'.

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is
available on the Internet at this address:
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/st...

I do not accept the public interest test has been properly
determined. Whilst I accept the provision for public policy
decision making, the public should expect to know what options
ministers have considered in making their policy decisions. This
provides the public with sufficient knowledge to hold Government
accountable for decisions made. I would also suggest that release
does not prohibit in any way free and frank provision of advice or
deliberation. This might be the case if policy was being formed and
a FOI was made at that time. However, this policy was determined
long ago and has been implemented for a number of years. It is
therefore not the case that release of this information does not
provide 'free thinking space' for ministers.
Furthermore Section 32 Subsection 2a states that once government
policy has been determined, statistical information used for
formulation of policy is no longer exempt.
I therefore request that the statistical data and implications
drawn from such data is released.

Yours sincerely,
Dr K J Hamer

Thank you for your recent email. A reply will be sent to you as soon
as possible (where a response is required). For information, the
departmental standard for correspondence received is that responses
should be sent within 15 working days or 20 working days if you are
requesting information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

Your correspondence has been allocated the reference number
2009/0021594.

Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills
http://www.dius.gov.uk/index.htm

show quoted sections

Dear Dr Hamer,
Thank you for your email of 7 March 2009, in which you have requested an
internal review of our handling of your original FOI request of 2 November
2008 on student loan repayment, which I responded to on 2 December 2009.

Your request for an internal review was received over two months after our
reply to your initial FOI request, so the Department is not strictly
obliged to conduct an internal review. However, after consideration we
have decided to proceed with an internal review.

After extensive searches, and despite having exceeded the -L-600 cost
threshold, we think we may have identified some paper files which might
contain the information which you seek. However, we will require some
extra time to digest the content and identify the relevant
justification/discussion elements.

I will be back in touch with you as soon as possible with the outcome of
the internal review.

Yours sincerely,

David Gregson
STUDENT FINANCE POLICY DIVISION

Your correspondence has been allocated the reference number 2009/0021594.

show quoted sections

Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or
recorded for legal purposes.

Dear Sir or Madam,

My understanding is that the internal review should be completed
within 20 working days, or otherwise with notice up to 40 working
days. Substantial time has now elapsed since you agreed to the
internal review - please would you provide me an update.

Yours sincerely,

Dr K J Hamer

Dear Dr Hamer,
Thank you for your email of 19 May 2009 about the internal review of the
Department's handling of your FOI request of 2 November 2008.

We will be in touch with you shortly with the outcome of the review.
Yours sincerely,

David Gregson
STUDENT FINANCE POLICY DIVISION

Your correspondence has been allocated the reference number 2009/0045369.

show quoted sections

Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or
recorded for legal purposes.

Dear Dr Hamer,

I refer to your request for an internal review, which was received on 7
March 2009. In your request you did not accept that the public interest
was properly determined in the handling of your Freedom of Information Act
(FOI) request.

The Department has now completed its internal review process and has
carried out a thorough review of the case, chaired by a senior officer who
was not involved with the original request.

During the review, the Department has made an extensive review of a large
number of paper files held in its archives in order to locate any relevant
materials, and has undertaken a public interest test concerning the
content of those materials to the satisfaction of the panel. This process
has delayed the review somewhat, so I apologise for the lateness in
replying to your request.

The Department has concluded that Section 35 of the FOI Act (Formulation
Of Government Policy), was incorrectly applied in its handling of your FOI
request - which should, in fact, have been section 36 (Prejudice To
Effective Conduct Of Public Affairs), and as a consequence, the public
interest test was not properly determined, as the policy in question had,
in the main, already been implemented.

However, the Department has decided to uphold the original decision not to
disclose the information concerned as it falls under the exemption in
section 36 of the FOI Act. Exemption 36 has been applied to sections in
the paper files that discuss or provide analysis on the issue of the
percentage rate at which student loans should be repaid, including
recommendations made to Ministers. This is because disclosure of the
information under the Act would, or would be likely to, inhibit:

i. the free and frank provision of advice, or the free and frank
exchange of views for the purposes of deliberation, - section
36(2)(b) or

i. would be likely otherwise to prejudice, the effective conduct of
public affairs - section 36(2) (c).

In applying this exemption we have had to balance the public interest in
withholding the information against the public interest in disclosing the
information.

Considerations which potentially may weigh in favour of disclosure include
the potential for open policy making to increase trust and engagement
between citizens and government, thus enabling citizens to be more
confident that decisions are taken on the basis of the best available
information.. There is an argument that as knowledge of the way government
works increases, public contribution to the policy making process could
become more effective and broadly-based. It may also be said that the
policy decision on the percentage at which student loans may be repaid was
made over ten years ago, so this might not be viewed by some to be a fresh
issue.

On the other hand, Ministers and their officials need uninhibited space in
which to develop their thinking and explore options in communications and
discussions with other ministers and officials. Ministers and their
officials need to be able to think through all the implications of
particular options. In particular, they need to be able to undertake
rigorous and candid assessments of the risks to particular programmes and
projects.

The expectation of later disclosure of that preliminary thinking could
have a severe inhibiting effect on the free and frank provision of advice
and exchange of views for the purposes of such deliberation, and will
effectively impair the effective conduct of public affairs. This could
limit Ministers, officials' and advisors' ability to explore and debate
options; and could have the effect of closing off better options and
leaving arguments unexplored and untested because of concerns about the
later reaction when thinking is disclosed. Disclosure of the process of
interdepartmental consideration may undermine the collective
responsibility of the government, its crown departments and officials.

Furthermore, losing this free space may mean that appropriate expert
advice is not sought because of the reluctance of those who might supply
it to engage in a debate where their contribution might be disclosable.

In addition, the Government made a commitment when variable tuition fees
were introduced, that it would commission an independent review of the
policy after three years operation. That review is likely to start during
2009 and the commission may wish to look at various aspects of the student
support package, including the rate at which student loans
are repaid, making this potentially a 'live' policy issue.

To this extent, s.35 could be applicable. However, given that sections 35
and 36 can only be used in the alternative, the panel took the view that
section 36 was the most appropriate exemption; and took the view that it
was right to withhold this information to protect the space in which
to develop and provide free and frank exchange of views and advice.

If you are unhappy with this decision, you have the right to appeal
directly to the Information Commissioner. The Information Commissioner can
be contacted at:

The Case Reception Unit
Customer Service Team
Information Commissioner's Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF

Further information about the Information Commissioner's complaints
procedure can be found on the Information Commissioner's Office website:
[1]http://www.ico.gov.uk/complaints/freedom...

Finally the panel concluded that the Department's reply to your FOI
request could have provided a little more explanation for why the 9%
repayment level for student loan repayments was chosen.

The policy discussions that led to the decision on the repayment level for
the income contingent student loans, introduced in 1998, were informed by
the recommendations of the 1997 National Committee Inquiry into Higher
Education chaired by Lord Dearing. The Committee's report and
recommendations can be found at:

[2]http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/ncihe/

The eventual 9% figure was considered to provide the best balance between
providing value for money for the taxpayer and financially impacting on
graduates who have taken out these loans

Yours sincerely,

David Gregson
STUDENT FINANCE POLICY DIVISION

Your correspondence has been allocated the reference number 2009/0021594.

show quoted sections

Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or
recorded for legal purposes.

References

Visible links
1. http://www.ico.gov.uk/complaints/freedom...
2. http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/ncihe/