Some of the UK¡¯s best-paid vice-chancellors have received further pay rises from their roles as directors of the sector¡¯s main pension scheme, Times ÖйúAƬ can reveal.

Sir David Eastwood, the vice-chancellor of the University of Birmingham, was paid ?90,000 last year in his capacity as chair of the Universities Superannuation Scheme. Dame Glynis Breakwell, vice-chancellor of the University of Bath, received ?50,000 as chair of the fund¡¯s policy committee.

The fees paid to the USS¡¯ 12 directors increased in 2016-17, although they had been frozen for three years before that.

Details of the payments were released to THE by USS and emerged as the scheme looks to plug a ?7.5 billion deficit. Universities UK is advocating an end to the USS¡¯ defined benefit scheme, a proposal that will reduce payments to scheme members in retirement.

ÖйúAƬ

For vice-chancellors serving on the board, who are appointed by UUK, USS fees are on top of their university salaries. Sir David¡¯s from Birmingham totalled ?439,000, up from ?426,000 the year before (a 3 per cent increase), and he also stands to gain ?80,000 over four years if specific performance targets are met under a ¡°long-term incentive plan¡±.

Dame Glynis announced her retirement last month amid mounting criticism of her remuneration at Bath, which totalled ?468,000 in 2016-17.

ÖйúAƬ

The third university leader who sits on the USS board, Sir Anton Muscatelli, principal of the University of Glasgow, was paid ?35,000. However a Glasgow spokesman said that Sir Anton ¡°gifts this entire amount every year¡± to the university, and ¡°always has done¡±.

¡°Sir Anton¡­does it because he thinks it is the right thing to do,¡± the spokesman said.

Sir David and Dame Glynis declined to answer directly when asked if they did the same.

A spokesman for the University and College Union accused ¡°well-remunerated vice-chancellors¡± on the USS board of ¡°pulling the ladder up on their staff¡± at a time when UUK¡¯s proposed reforms ¡°would slash pensions by as much as 40 per cent¡±.

Roger Brown, former vice-chancellor of Southampton Solent University, said that Sir David and Dame Glynis were on the board only?by virtue of being vice-chancellors and that any earnings should therefore ¡°be paid to their employer¡±.

ÖйúAƬ

¡°Being a vice-chancellor of a university is not a small thing and vice-chancellors are not paid a small salary,¡± he said. ¡°Everything you do during your time at a university should be to the credit of the university.¡±

The USS¡¯ says that the remuneration of its 12 directors totalled ?731,000 in the year ending March 2017, up from ?591,000 the year before.

A USS spokesman said that vice-chancellors sitting on the board ¡°have personal responsibilities to fulfil as directors of the trustee company that are distinct from their other roles¡±.

ÖйúAƬ

¡°Board members are responsible for the stewardship of a significant financial institution¡­which requires a substantial commitment of time and effort to demanding roles,¡± the spokesman said. ¡°They are remunerated on a basis which is approved by the joint negotiating committee, made up of union and employer representatives. No member of the JNC serves on the [USS] board.¡±

Asked whether he paid his earnings from USS to Birmingham, Sir David answered that he was ¡°committed to giving generously¡± and that the value of his giving to the university alone ¡°exceeds ?100,000¡±. Asked the same question regarding Bath, Dame Glynis said that she had ¡°always chosen not to publicise the nature, scale or object of my philanthropy¡±.

About 190,000 staff in mainly pre-92 institutions are covered by the USS. released by UUK last week indicates that its proposals would reduce pension incomes by up to 17 per cent: for example, a member with 10 years¡¯ service earning between ?35,000 and ?45,000 could expect an annual income of ?22,500, including the state pension, rather than ?26,000. UCU¡¯s analysis suggested much higher reductions, of up to 39 per cent.

chris.havergal@timeshighereducation.com

ÖйúAƬ

Source: USS. UCU policy states that its nominees should not gain personal benefit from their position on the board if they are in full-time work.