Vlog

Northumbria to freeze pay if staff refuse TPS-USS pension switch

University says moving employees from more expensive scheme will save it up to £11 million a year

Published on
November 7, 2025
Last updated
November 7, 2025
Pension letter
Source: iStock/Ceri Breeze

A post-92 university will freeze staff pay if they choose to remain in a more expensive pension scheme as institutions continue to find new ways to grapple with rising costs.

Northumbria University wants to move existing academic employees from the Teachers’ Pension Scheme (TPS) to the Universities Superannuation Scheme (USS) in an attempt to save up to £11 million annually.

It will incentivise staff to do so initially with the offer of a one-off payment of between £5,800 and £10,000 before then moving to a system of “reward envelopes”, based on an employee’s total salary and their employer pension contributions, to determine how future pay increases are implemented.

Staff who transfer to the USS will see their salaries rise in line with the nationally agreed pay uplift, while employees who choose to remain in the TPS will not see an increase in their take-home pay.

Vlog

ADVERTISEMENT

This is because their take-home pay and the cost of their pension contributions will “exceed the envelope for their grade point”, explain Jane Embley, chief people officer at Northumbria, and Tom Lawson, deputy vice-chancellor and provost in a  published on 7 November.

“However, over time, when the value of the total reward envelope for colleagues in USS and TPS has equalised, the salaries for those choosing TPS will increase again,” they write.

Vlog

ADVERTISEMENT

The university argues that this will give staff the choice over “how much of their total reward they receive as income now and how much we pay in pension contributions”, meaning it can still meet its legal obligation to offer the TPS to staff, even though it hopes the USS to become the “normalised” pension choice in future.

“While to some this will be controversial, ultimately, our proposed approach will mean that over time (likely to be up to seven years) the reward envelope (or cost) for USS and TPS employees will have equalised and as such we will have eliminated the differential costs of employing these two groups of colleagues undertaking the same roles, and be on an equal footing with other universities,” Embley and Lawson say.

The University and College Union said its branch officers had been “surprised” to learn of the developments, given their “frequent queries about pensions” had been “met with little information”.

“Our position is clear, members’ pensions are deferred and hard-earned pay, and an integral part of members' terms and conditions,” said regional support official Jon Bryan.

“UCU will not allow management to impose changes that will rip staff off, either by reducing pensions or by reducing pay.  Any changes must be negotiated and agreed with us. Our members will be meeting as a matter of urgency to discuss next steps.”

Vlog

ADVERTISEMENT

Post-92 universities have long campaigned against their legal obligation to offer academic staff the TPS, which now has an employer contribution of 28.68 per cent, compared with employer contributions of 14.5 per cent on the USS, more commonly offered to staff at older institutions.

Embley and Lawson write that TPS contributions are “compounding” the financial difficulties faced by post-92 universities, and say “the severity of the current situation means the moment for change is now”.

They note that for every 1,000 staff, an institution faces more than £8 million in additional costs per year if staff are members of TPS rather than the USS. At Northumbria, this cost exceeds £11 million.

Vlog

ADVERTISEMENT

Many post-92 universities have already taken action to reduce their pension contributions, with universities including Coventry, Worcester and Portsmouth transferring staff to subsidiary firms, meaning they are longer obliged to offer them the TPS.

However, Embley and Lawson say this route means staff are not eligible for participation in the Research Excellence Framework, and “as a research-intensive institution, we did not consider [this] to be a path we could take”.

The government recently signalled in its skills White Paper that it was prepared to look again at whether universities should be compelled to participate in TPS.

But Embley and Lawson say “the time for change is now…and we cannot wait for the outcome of a consultation or for the government to decide how it will seek to address this obvious disparity in the sector”.

Vlog

ADVERTISEMENT

UCU’s Bryan added that “to protect members’ interests, pay, and pensions, we cannot rule out calling a dispute and running a ballot for industrial action”.

juliette.rowsell@timeshighereducation.com

Register to continue

Why register?

  • Registration is free and only takes a moment
  • Once registered, you can read 3 articles a month
  • Sign up for our newsletter
Please
or
to read this article.

Related articles

Related universities

Reader's comments (6)

The shape of things to come.
The two schemes are broadly comparable with respect to the DB element applicable in the case of USS up to a retirement salary level which is that for many academics; it is debatable how much value to attach to the DC component within USS (some might welcome the flexibility it offers). But the worrying difference could be the restricted inflation-proofing of USS pensions in payment - I think TPS is more generous; pensions with limited proofing can be eroded very quickly once we get a Government that loses control of inflation as in the 1970s…
The biggest difference is that TPS is government backed, while USS isn't. This means that if things get dicey again for USS, then it could be forced to close, as it need to be guaranteed funded at a 66% confidence, which does not apply to TPS.
"more commonly offered to staff at older institutions". No, not "older". The reference is to institutions that were part of the University sector before 1992, compared to those HE institutions (the majority) that were not. Many of the so-called "older" institutions, like Lancaster, York, Essex, Stirling, Open etc, were only formed in the 1960s, while many of the so-called "younger" institutions date back to the technological institutions of the Victorian era and even before - example: the University of Lancashire grew from the Preston Institution for the Diffusion of Knowledge established on 19 November 1828, while nearby Lancaster University was not inaugurated until 1964. The latter is the older institution, not the former as is widely assumed. The former Vlog Funding Council for England discovered this when it rather foolishly invented a fund for "historic buildings", designed to compensate Oxford and Cambridge University Colleges for the loss of College fees when Tony Blair's Labour government in 1997 introduced a student contribution to fees and abolished any "top-ups" or additional fees paid out of the public or student purse that had been milked by collegial institutions for decades. HEFCE was staffed by former employers from the pre-92 University sector who assumed that as they were the most ancient universities with lots of historic buildings, it was a good way of compensating Oxbridge for loss of public funding (like they were In dire straits!). In fact a large part of the funding went to the former polytechnics in England, many of whom had significant Victorian buildings amongst their estate that had been permanently occupied for over a century. The plate glass 1960s 'new' universities didn't get a penny and were very miffed - the funding had to be phased out when HEFCE realised their mistake.
Oops latter and former are wrong way round. Never mind, point is clear. Incidentally, in 1992 the Nalgo trade union, representing support and technical staff mostly in the post-92 sector proposed that a single public sector pension scheme representing all workers, "academic" and support staff, should be established replacing the USS (which only represents about 20% of university sector staff) and levelling up all benefits. The USS and the then Conservative government were horrified at the cost and refused to change, so the shiny new HE sector (actually four sectors) inherited a ramshackle system of multiple pension systems and funds that blight it to this day. Michael Picken, Glasgow (retired administrator)
new
How is this possible given USS's exclusivity rule? USS Rule 45.1 states that "An institution shall not be entitled to participate, or to continue to participate, in the scheme, if it establishes, maintains or contributes to any other pension scheme for eligible employees or excluded post employees." (https://www.uss.co.uk/about-us/scheme-rules)

Sponsored

Featured jobs

See all jobs
ADVERTISEMENT