On the go: At least two employers, including the University of Oxford and the University of Sheffield, have rejected the call for contingent contributions in a consultation from Britain’s largest private sector pension scheme, the Universities Superannuation Scheme.
The £63bn scheme, whose 400,000 members include academics and higher education workers, has managed to reduce its deficit to £3.6bn from £7.5bn 18 months ago.
The USS trustee wants to introduce a form of additional contingent support with trigger contributions, in case the deficit widens again, but some employer universities including the University of Oxford and the University of Sheffield consider that such support is unnecessary.
The trustee has asked for a series of further increases to be triggered automatically – known as contingent contributions. Universities UK is proposing these contingent contributions would be in three phases if triggered, eventually reaching 10.2 per cent of salary for employees and 22 per cent for employers.
In a letter to her colleagues, Professor Anne Trefethen, the University of Oxford, pro-vice-chancellor for people and gardens, libraries and museums, rejected the argument for contingent contributions. “We believe the contingency proposal is premature,” she said.
In a response to the technical provision consultation, the University of Sheffield said: “Neither the University nor our UCU representatives consider that further contingent support is necessary.”
The response sent by Ian Wright, deputy director of human resources at the University of Sheffield, to Stuart McLean, who is head of pensions at UUK, states that “the University of Sheffield continues to have serious concerns regarding the approach taken by the USS Trustee to the 2018 Valuation”.
Mr Wright argued that “the contentious nature of the methodology adopted by the USS Trustee in undertaking both the 2017 and 2018 Valuations, and the lack of transparency and explanation/rationale behind decisions and positions of the Trustee, is leading once again to a position whereby key stakeholders do not have trust in the figures and outcomes resulting from the latest valuation.”
He wrote that this in turn risks further potential conflict between employers and their staff despite both parties taking a similar view on the valuation and seeking a common aim.
