Peers backed down last night in a deadlock over the government’s proposed pension reforms after ministerial concessions, the Press Association reports. PA says:

The upper chamber had repeatedly refused to let the government take on powers to tell pension funds how they should invest a certain amount of savers’ money, with the aim of encouraging economic growth in the UK.

Following ministerial amendments on Tuesday intended to assuage peers’ concerns, the House of Lords has accepted a final draft of the pension schemes bill.

The portion of funds would be limited to 10%, by value, of all assets of the scheme in main default reserves, or 5% of assets to be held in UK-specific description.

Pensions minister Torsten Bell said earlier in the Commons that the government had tweaked the power since peers last reviewed it.

He proposed “a new requirement on regulators, in this case, the Pensions Regulator and the Financial Conduct Authority, to make an assessment of barriers” to pension funds investing their money into private assets.

The government would also be unable to use the power before 2028 and it would be repealed in full by 2035.

He pointed to the government’s pensions review, which found the defined contribution pensions market “is operating with an excessively narrow focus on cost”.

The probe found that “the excessively narrow focus can be detrimental to saver outcomes”.

Bell told the Commons: “That is where the reserve power comes from – it exists because the review found and the industry itself has told us that competitive pressure focused on cost minimisation is the single biggest barrier to diversifying in savers’ long-term interest”.

The changes were accepted by peers.

Liberal Democrat peer Lady Bowles of Berkhamsted told the Lords that she was “still no fan of mandation, but I think we have got it now suitably under control”, saying there were now “reasonable guardrails” in place.

Shadow minister Viscount Younger of Leckie said: “The government have consistently argued that mandation is necessary to address a collective action problem, they will now need to substantiate that claim with robust independent evidence, and for the Secretary of State to have regard to this assessment before they make regulations.”

Lady Sherlock, the work and pensions minister, said the bill would “help reshape the pensions landscape” and help savers get a better return.

On Monday Kiran Stacey revealed that the Treasury is considering imposing a one-year rent freeze on private sector homes as part of its response to the economic shock caused by the Iran war.

Yesterday the government’s response was varied; while Rachel Reeves, the chancellor, would not rule out the idea when she was asked about it, No 10 said it had “no plans” to do this – a standard government formula which can mean something will never happen, or that it’s an option being considered but government is not yet willing to discuss it.

Today the government has come out with a third position on the story; Steve Reed, the housing secretary, flatly ruled out the proposal.

Asked if the government was floating the idea to appeal to potential Green voters, Reed replied: “No. I think I’ve just been crystal clear, we’re not doing it.”

In his interview with Times Radio this morning, Steve Reed, the housing secretary, said the UK ambassador to Washington, Christian Turner, was wrong to suggest in a private conversation that Keir Starmer may lose his job after the May elections.

Asked about the comment, Reed said:

[Turner] was speaking to a group of school kids. I don’t know whether he meant it seriously, lightheartedly, but whatever it is, it’s not going to happen. He’s not Mystic Meg. We saw in the vote last night, our parliamentary Labour party, our MPs are fully behind our prime minister.

But Reed said he did not think there was a need for Turner to apologise. Asked about this, Reed said:

I don’t think people have to apologise for every single comment that they make. No.

My colleague Jessica Elgot posted this on Bluesky last night about Darren Jones’s closing speech in the privileges committee debate.

Keir Starmer had a lot to thank Darren Jones for today - he reminded his backbenches of their real enemies. Reminiscent of the Michael Gove speech at the no confidence vote called by Jeremy Corbyn, which brought his warring party (briefly) back together.

Here is an extract from what Jones said.

Regrettably – we see this again today, time after time – the opposition are just trying to expand their interpretation of the prime minister’s words in bad faith, because their previous claim that the prime minister must have known about Peter Mandelson’s clearance has fallen apart in front of their eyes, and now they are grasping at straws …

[Privileges committee] investigations cannot be done every week off the back of PMQs on an interpretation of the wording of the prime minister. Instead, they must be done on very significant cases that warrant the work of the privileges committee. That is why it is important to contrast the allegations and accusations of the opposition parties, as many Members of the House have done today, with the seriousness of the situation when Boris Johnson was referred to the privileges committee in the last parliament.

This is an important precedent. In those circumstances, Boris Johnson knowingly told this House that there were no parties in Downing Street during Covid lockdowns, only for it to emerge that he had personally been at five of them and received a police fine for attending them. That is the nature of lying to this House, which he was proven to have done in the work of the privileges committee. It is not about the interpretation of a question and answer at prime minister’s questions.

This all begs the question: if there is no substance to the allegations in the motion today, what is it that is driving the behaviour of opposition parties? That question goes to the very basis of the motion before us. I have to ask: what is it precisely about this Labour government giving rights and powers to workers, renters and the disadvantaged that they do not like? What is it about this Labour government standing against unearned wealth and people who use their privilege to extract value from the system, rather than adding to it, that they do not like? What is it about a Labour government raising taxes on private jets and non-doms to raise money for our state schools, our NHS and our police and to lift children out of poverty after years of neglect by the Conservative party that the opposition parties do not want to hear? We all know why – because they are on the side of the vested interests, and we are on the side of the British people.

You can read the full speech here.

Good morning. Originally Keir Starmer was hoping that there would not be a need for a PMQs today, but we have got one, and it will definitely be the last of the 2024-26 parliamentary session. It will be a chance for Starmer to reflect on all the legislation passed.

There is some relief that the government won the vote on Kemi Badenoch’s call for Starmer to be referred to the privileges committee with ease. Here is our overnight story by Pippa Crerar, Ben Quinn and Jessica Elgot.

Labour MPs were also cheered by Darren Jones’ speech winding up the debate, of which more later.

Some 53 Labour MPs did not take part in the division last night – some because they were authorised to be away, others because they were abstaining deliberately because they did not want to vote against the motion – but only 15 voted with Badenoch. Here is the list.

At the start of this session of parliament, Starmer removed the whip from seven Labour MPs who voted for an SNP amendment to the king’s speech motion calling for the two-child benefit benefits cap to be abolished. Subsequently this was seen as an overreaction (not least because abolishing the cap later became government policy), and in an interview this morning Steve Reed, the housing secretary, played down the prospect of last night’s 15 rebels having the whip withdrawn. Asked if they should lose the whip, he told Times Radio:

There was a handful of usual suspects who did what they tend to do. I’m not in charge of discipline, I’m not too bothered about them to be honest.

And he told Sky News:

You’ve got a handful of usual suspects that will repeatedly vote against the government. They’re not going to distract us.

You know, we’ve got the renters’ rights reforms coming in this Friday, which gives renters, people who rent their home, the biggest increase in protections and rights that we’ve had for a generation.

That is what voters want us to focus on, not a handful of people that go off and don’t play the team game with the rest of us.

Ninety nine percent of us are united with the prime minister so that we can focus on the issues that matter.

Reed’s maths is a bit off; the 15 rebels amount to about 4% of the PLP, not 1%. But you get the point.

Here is the agenda for the day.

Noon: Keir Starmer faces Kemi Badenoch at PMQs.

1.15pm: Parliament prorogues with a ceremony in the House of Lords.

2pm: Ed Davey, the Lib Dem leader, holds a press conference on plans to “keep Trump, Musk and Putin out of our politics”.

If you want to contact me, please post a message below the line when comments are open (between 10am and 3pm), or message me on social media. I can’t read all the messages BTL, but if you put “Andrew” in a message aimed at me, I am more likely to see it because I search for posts containing that word.

If you want to flag something up urgently, it is best to use social media. You can reach me on Bluesky at @andrewsparrowgdn.bsky.social. The Guardian has given up posting from its official accounts on X, but individual Guardian journalists are there, I still have my account, and if you message me there at @AndrewSparrow, I will see it and respond if necessary.

I find it very helpful when readers point out mistakes, even minor typos. No error is too small to correct. And I find your questions very interesting too. I can’t promise to reply to them all, but I will try to reply to as many as I can, either BTL or sometimes in the blog.