Pension Schemes Bill Debate
Full Debate: Read Full DebateDepartment: Department for Work and Pensions
Baroness Stedman-Scott
Main Page: Baroness Stedman-Scott (Conservative - Life peer)Department Debates - View all Baroness Stedman-Scott's debates with the Department for Work and Pensions
Pension Schemes Bill
Baroness Stedman-Scott ExcerptsMonday 27th April 2026
(1 day, 10 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Pension Schemes Bill 2024-26 View all Pension Schemes Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Commons Consideration of Lords Message as at 27 April 2026 - large print - (27 Apr 2026)
Lord Ashcombe (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as an employee of Marsh, whose sister company Mercer is a pension consultancy, master trust provider and, importantly, a signatory to the Mansion House Accord. Firms that signed the Mansion House Accord last year in good faith, believing that fiduciary duty and trustee oversight would be preserved in order to ensure value for money for the individual pensioners whose funds they are responsible for investing, now face the prospect—or, dare I say, the threat—of mandation. This simply cannot be right, and we certainly do not think so.
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
My Lords, I have little to add to the compelling case set out by the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, and indeed by us all throughout the passage of the Bill. Our position remains unchanged: mandation has no place in the Bill and, if the Government are serious about securing its passage, they should remove it.