Lord Puttnam - Prat?

[Gromit]

The 3 year passage of the Defamation Act looks to have been scuppered at the last minute because of Puttnam.

The Act had all party support, and then last week in the Lords, Puttnam added several amendments which the Lords voted for.

The Amendments added several items aimed at regulating the media. Stuff far further than Leveson had called for.

The result, the Libel Bill could now fail because the Conservatives can not support it with the Puttnam amendments.

It was probably Lord Falconer (remember him) who probably drafted the amendments, and Puttnam who persauded his Lordships to pass the amendments.

The result, our archaic Libel laws may not get the reform they need.

Prat indeed.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2013/mar/05/defamation-bill-leveson-clause

[jake-the-peg]

This is a Lords ammendment - don't see why you're blaming Puttnam - the Lords voted for it he just introduced it.

Surely if the commons don't support the ammendments they'll remove them and send the bill back.

If it comes back again with the clauses reinstated then the parliament act will get another airing.

Isn't this just how it's meant to work?

you don't want a house of Lords that's just a 'rubber stamping house' after all that's what the Queen's for!

[jim360]

Not seen the Bill or the amendments -- but JTP is right. Lords should be a place to test the details and as long as the Commons can over-rule it with the Parliament Act 1948 then everything is working fine. I do hope that this bill isn't scuppered but as lone as the Commons rates the bill important enough they can get it through whatever the Lords do.

[youngmafbog]

I think where Gromit is coming from is that this is a Bill that had all party support so must have been pretty spot on (as far as any Bill can be). To then add contentious amendments (he and the rest of the old gits) nabd must have known the Bill wouldn't get through.

So now we have nothing. Pratt indeed.

[jake-the-peg]

Actually the article says *reform* has all party support

Labour and the Liberal democrats want legislative change and David Cameron who enjoys support from so many of the Big Press Barons does not (odd that!).

I think the argument between those who want some reform now even if it's watered down and those who think better to wait and have proper reform

[ichkeria]

I agree with Gromit on this.
Very frustrating

[Gromit]

If there is going to be a a regulator of the press with teeth then that should come from the Commons, be properly debated and approved there.

Not slipped in through the back door on an amendment from an unelected bloke who made a good bread advert 40 years ago.

[jim360]

What that overlooks, though, is how much vital work the Lords does in making Laws much better. This may not be the best example, to be sure. But a lot of laws written in the Commons go through scrutiny by experts in the Lords that tightens it up and improves it. Like the idea of unelected people making our laws or not, you have to concede that nearly all of the time the work they do is vital and beneficial.

THat is a general statement, anyway -- not sure how true it is in this case.