Whilst the public perception of cancer has changed radically in the last few years moving to an expectation of treatment, detection and better care, this cannot be said to be true for mental health. There is still an aura of stigma.

In a recent Harris survey commissioned for pH7 on MPs' perception of the impact of mental health cases on their constituency workload, 29 per cent of the respondents (148 total) reported that they regularly see constituents exhibiting general anxiety or paranoia, with a further 57 per cent reporting occasional meetings with such constituents. When specifically addressing mental health care issues such as the non-availability of newer prescription drugs or the waiting times for psychiatric treatment and /or counselling, the figures were extremely revealing, with 48 per cent and 55 per cent respectively.

The act of participating in this survey probably influenced MPs' views on the importance of NHS provision for mental health patients. Sixty per cent of those interviewed believed that improvements to mental services should have the same priority as other targets in the NHS, such as heart disease and cancer. Moreover, 31 per cent, mostly Labour MPs, felt that a priority for mental health should be higher.

Current statistics reveal that one adult in four in the UK will develop some form of mental health problem at some point in their life. However it remains to be seen if these figures cover all possible aspects of mental health disorders or only those that are more easily diagnosed.

The fact is that MPs are recognising an increased casework load related to mental health matters amongst their constituents. The same survey previously mentioned showed that 71 per cent of MPs, mainly Labour, report that no more than five per cent of their constituency casework is related to mental health issues.

However, "distress" does not always fall into the category of mental disorder. The increased levels of anxiety generated by today's competition-driven business mentality are becoming more and more visible. As I recently pointed out in the House of Commons during a debate on health and safety, a TUC safety representatives' survey has identified workloads, staffing levels, new management techniques (sometimes verging on bullying!), and long hours as the top causes for stress and mental-ill health in the modern British workplace.

At the opposite side of the welfare scale, the increased levels of anxiety amongst the unemployed population can be witnessed on a regular basis in any MP's constituency office. Poverty and the daily struggle to harness the welfare system contribute acutely to poor physical and emotional health, which inevitably could lead to very serious cases of depression. Things reach a further level of complexity when we ask the question of whether poverty is the triggering mechanism for certain mental disorders or indeed the result of individuals remaining undiagnosed and being unable to escape the welfare loop.

When we consider the difficulties not only in treating diagnosed mental health patients but in finding them suitable accommodation, we can only but estimate the real magnitude of the problem.

Unfortunately the government's draft White Paper on Mental Health again focuses too much on Personality Disorders, and not enough on the primary care infrastructure required to ensure proper provision of counselling and other related services for all individuals suffering from any form of psychological distress.

The 1999 National Service Framework for Mental Health was aimed at setting standards in five different areas, including discrimination and social exclusion. The government has since put these issues at the top of the agenda, but progress in relation to mental health has been noticeably slow. Far more also needs to be done to tackle racial disadvantage in the mental health services. In a system where ethnic minority patients access services at later stages of disease progression, and are less likely to be offered non-physical interventions such as psychology or counselling, it should not surprise anybody that the final outcome is usually detention rather than treatment as informal patients.

We therefore need to ensure the provision of mental health services on the basis of entitlement to treatment rather than enforcement, particularly at very early stages, and these treatments should follow a holistic approach to care. Access to atypical drugs should be the norm rather than the exception. We know this makes not only medical but financial sense, particularly when bringing into the equation all additional human costs as well as long term welfare provision. Indeed, the overall cost of treatment would be much lower than currently estimated.

A major conference recently held in Norwich brought together people involving GPs, consultants, patients, carers, social services, the voluntary sector, politicians, and many others in the health service. It was interesting to see and hear from people who had never met and yet who looked after the same patients. It is an interesting time to progress some of the issues I have raised above.