USS whistleblower sacked from pension fund board ‘unlawfully’

A professor who is taking UK higher education’s largest pension scheme to an employment tribunal has accused the organisation of “groupthink” after it “ignored” her concerns about the validity of a valuation.

At the start of her much-delayed tribunal on 17 May, Jane Hutton said months of her concerns being rebuffed forced her to become a whistleblower and disclose information to outside sources, for which she was eventually removed from her post as director for the Universities Superannuation Scheme (USS) in 2019.

During the hearing, she faced questions over whether she had refused to engage with different viewpoints as she “dogmatically” pursued her interpretation that the size of the scheme’s deficit in 2017 had been overestimated due to assumptions made during the valuation.

The University of Warwick statistician – who served as a non-executive director for USS from 2015 until 2019 after being nominated by the University and College Union – claimed she was “unlawfully removed from office by reason of my making protected disclosures”, which, she said, had an “enormous effect on my professional life and physical health”.

USS said as a director she was duty bound to confidentiality and its whistleblowing policies don’t apply, while her claims about the valuation were thoroughly investigated and the processes were found to be robust.

In a witness statement submitted to the tribunal, Professor Hutton said she had become concerned about the accuracy of the 2017 valuation – which led to an increase in both employer and member contributions – due to what she saw as errors in calculating the retirement rate.

She said members of the scheme were assumed to be retiring earlier than they did in practice, while she also claimed they weren’t living as long as expected, meaning the size of the deficit – estimated to have been £7.5 billion at the time – was wrong.

Professor Hutton said in her evidence that she had “deep rooted concerns that the matters I was raising with the [USS] board were simply being ignored”.

“I got a firm sense of obstacles being placed in my way as to my concerns being addressed,” her statement added.

It was this inaction, Professor Hutton claimed, that led to her raise concerns formally with The Pensions Regulator (TPR) and the Financial Reporting Council (FRC) in March 2018.

She later also gave media interviews, including to Times Higher Education, and provided information to the joint negotiating committee, which includes UCU representatives.

Professor Hutton claimed the disclosures were in the public interest because the valuation affects universities’ funding decisions as well as the financial position of active members. The increases in contributions and subsequent cuts to scheme benefits have led to long-running industrial action across UK campuses.

As part of her claim, she wants to be reinstated as a director, receive recognition she was unfairly dismissed, compensation for financial loss and an award for the injury to her feelings.

Professor Hutton’s conduct was at the time subject to an internal investigation by the firm Slaughter and May, the results of which were largely kept confidential but concluded she had breached her contractual duties. Evidence presented to the tribunal showed that USS’ legal bill for the year 2019-20 increased by £1.5 million, although it is not known how much of this was spent on the inquiry.

Under cross-examination, Professor Hutton denied she was unwilling to engage with alternative viewpoints or that she was confrontational, pointing to the fact that she supported most of the board’s decisions.

In his written evidence, the former chair of the USS board, Sir David Eastwood, said his impression of Professor Hutton was that “she seemed to believe her view must prevail”.

He recalled a comment she is said to have made at a dinner that she was “on a crusade” as she felt the pensions industry had “technical failings”. On another occasion, Sir David said Professor Hutton told a meeting that “The papers of the scheme actuary would not pass a first-year statistics exam.” The tribunal continues.

tom.williams@timeshighereducation.com