Mental Health Bill [Lords]

I am glad to see that the Minister shares my view. In fact, the mental health partnership was one of the first foundation status organisations within the sector. The annual report shows that one of the biggest risks over the next five years is this Bill or Act if it passes through Parliament. If Patrick Geoghegan and the South Essex mental health partnership are concerned, I am certainly concerned. Meetings with organisations such as SUNRISE and more national organisations such as Mind and Rethink have confirmed my worst fears. Visiting a local prison did likewise. The hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) referred to a figure in the high 70s in respect of people in prison with mental health problems. On visiting a local prison, I was told that more than 80 per cent. of the male population were suffering from some form of mental illness. That is truly horrific. Many hon. Members have mentioned the mental health partnership and been extremely complimentary about the organisation—or collection of organisations. The partnership believes that the amendments tabled in the other place ““significantly improve”” the legislation, in contrast to the Minister’s assertion that they ““seriously weaken”” it. With no offence intended to the Minister, I tend to support the view of experienced health professionals over that of politicians. We could say that professionals always have a narrow or biased view, but they are backed up not only by the Mental Health Alliance, but by the Law Society, which has welcomed the amendments, calling them ““measured and judicious changes”” and urging the Government not to overturn them. Those are two very eminent societies, as hon. Members on both sides of the House have acknowledged, and what they say is surely right. Beyond the additional four amendments tabled in the other place, a number of their Lordships spoke about independent advocacy, which has also been mentioned in this House. Independent advocacy was included in the 2002 and 2004 draft Bills, but is missing from the current Bill. I would like to see Ministers bring forward more detailed provisions on advocacy in Committee, building on the work already mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Angela Browning). The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North mentioned the nearest relative and it is important to expand on who can be nominated by an individual, particularly when they are of sound mind. I ask the Government to reflect on tabling amendments to provide that such choices do not have to be brought before the courts. It is important not to have too much bureaucracy surrounding the process. In my final minute, I would like to make a point about stigma. Katie J, a local artist, recently invited me to open an exhibition, provocatively named ““Sad, Mad and Glad””. Katie suffers from mental health problems, but felt a responsibility as a pillar of the community to say that it is possible for people to come out the other side and to talk about mental health problems. One concern raised by Members, particularly on this side of the House, is that parts of the Bill may drive people with mental health problems underground. That is the very thing that neither side of the House wants. It is, however, a problem that I fear will be significant.