Mental Health Bill [HL]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. It is not surprising that ever since 1983 the House has been discussing this question and Members on either side of the House—or whichever side they happen to be on at the time—simply disagree. That said, it is helpful that the Minister has alluded to the fact that we wait to see with the amendment. It is a matter of supreme importance, given all that has been said by noble Lords all the way through our discussions—and not simply thosewho wish to defend the rights of patients but those who wish to see the issue clarified for practitioners, who are often highly exposed to criticism about their failures, especially with regard to cases when therehas been a tragedy. Practitioners are having their work scrutinised and their failures put under the microscope. For those reasons, it is important that there is consistency and clarity between primary legislation and the code of practice. They were very different documents in draft. I take the point that the code of practice will be substantially revised in light of the discussions that we have in this House and another place, and that this part in particular—that is, the relationship of the principles in the code of practice to the rest of the measures—is one that will definitely be revised. There is a distance between us. We do not at the moment have a clear way forward, but we may at Third Reading. However, at this point I thank the Minister for his answer and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Schedule 9 [Transitional provisions and savings]: