{"id":19105,"date":"2026-04-21T23:48:22","date_gmt":"2026-04-21T23:48:22","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/britain\/19105\/"},"modified":"2026-04-21T23:48:22","modified_gmt":"2026-04-21T23:48:22","slug":"labours-reckless-reach-to-gamble-your-pension-savings-rejected-again-amid-state-overreach-fears","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/britain\/19105\/","title":{"rendered":"Labour’s ‘reckless reach to gamble your pension savings’ rejected AGAIN amid state overreach fears"},"content":{"rendered":"

The House of Lords has handed Labour a second defeat over its proposed pension ‘mandation’ powers, rejecting the plans by 219 votes to 144.<\/p>\n

Peers voted on Tuesday to block the measure, sending the Pension Schemes Bill back to the House of Commons in the latest stage of parliamentary \u201cping pong\u201d.<\/p>\n

Ministers had attempted to pass a revised version of the proposal last week after securing backing from Labour MPs.<\/p>\n

However, opposition from across parties in the Lords prevented the changes from being approved.<\/p>\n

The proposal would give ministers reserve powers to direct pension schemes to invest billions of pounds into private markets.<\/p>\n

Under the plans, schemes could be required to allocate up to 10 per cent of their assets into private market investments.<\/p>\n

Half of that amount would be directed towards UK-based assets.<\/p>\n

The powers would remain in place until 2035, a timeframe that has drawn criticism from peers.<\/p>\n

\"Reeves\"\/<\/p>\n

House of Lords blocks Labour pension mandation plan again as Bill sent back to Commons<\/p>\n

| <\/p>\n

GETTY<\/p>\n

The policy was first introduced last summer and faced immediate resistance from parts of the pensions industry.<\/p>\n

Critics argued the measure could reduce the independence of trustees responsible for managing pension funds.<\/p>\n

After an initial defeat in the Lords last month, the Government brought forward what it described as a revised version of the policy.<\/p>\n

Labour MPs approved the amended proposal in the Commons last Wednesday.<\/p>\n

\"Pension\"\/<\/p>\n

Peers rejected the changes during Tuesday\u2019s vote<\/p>\n

| <\/p>\n

GETTY<\/p>\n

Baroness Altmann, a former pensions minister, said: “Forcing funds to buy high risk private assets by a legally required date is fraught with dangers. <\/p>\n

“It could cause asset bubbles, investor losses and lower pensions.”<\/p>\n

She added: “The Government does not know best when it comes to investing for the long term and the timing of investments in private or illiquid assets cannot be shoehorned into a short timeframe.”<\/p>\n

Helen Whately, the shadow work and pensions secretary, said: “Mandation is still a reckless reach into people’s savings. <\/p>\n

“Politicians should not be allowed to gamble your pension investments on their latest pet project.”<\/p>\n

The Bill will now return to the Commons, where ministers are expected to consider further amendments.<\/p>\n

The legislation is likely to remain under discussion ahead of the next King\u2019s Speech.<\/p>\n

Some critics have questioned the need for the proposed powers given the Mansion House Accord agreed last year.<\/p>\n

\"Helen<\/p>\n

Ms Whately said the attempt to control pension investments was dangerous<\/p>\n

| <\/p>\n

GETTY<\/p>\n

That voluntary agreement involves 17 major pension providers and covers around 90 per cent of active defined contribution pension savers.<\/p>\n

Signatories committed to investing at least 10 per cent of assets into assets designed to support economic growth by 2030.<\/p>\n

Pensions experts have raised concerns that mandation could undermine trustees\u2019 legal duty to act in the best interests of scheme members.<\/p>\n

Tom Selby of AJ Bell said the Government\u2019s approach risked using pension savings to support wider economic objectives.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"The House of Lords has handed Labour a second defeat over its proposed pension ‘mandation’ powers, rejecting the…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":19106,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[4],"tags":[31,253,4429,14,8730,5,20,6],"class_list":{"0":"post-19105","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-uk","8":"tag-labour-party","9":"tag-money","10":"tag-pensions","11":"tag-politics","12":"tag-savings","13":"tag-uk","14":"tag-uk-politics","15":"tag-united-kingdom"},"share_on_mastodon":{"url":"https:\/\/pubeurope.com\/@UnitedKingdom\/116445374173338972","error":""},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/britain\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/19105","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/britain\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/britain\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/britain\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/britain\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=19105"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/britain\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/19105\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/britain\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/19106"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/britain\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=19105"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/britain\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=19105"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/britain\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=19105"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}