Bob Doris MSP

Welcome to Bob Doris MSP's biography pages

Parliamentary Activities

Search for other Speeches made by Bob Doris

Meeting of the Parliament 09 October 2014 : Thursday, October 09, 2014
Bob Doris (Glasgow) (SNP)

My constituents in the Glasgow region will welcome the £81 million pledge to tackle some of the worst aspects of UK welfare reform, including by fully mitigating the bedroom tax and supporting the Scottish welfare fund. Will the cabinet secretary also do all that he can, within the constraints of this Parliament, to defend our working poor, who are under attack from the current, right-wing Tory UK Government?



Health and Sport Committee 07 October 2014 : Tuesday, October 07, 2014
Bob Doris (Glasgow) (SNP)

I am an MSP for Glasgow and the deputy convener of the Health and Sport Committee.



Health and Sport Committee 07 October 2014 : Tuesday, October 07, 2014
Bob Doris

The committee took evidence last week from the Mental Health Tribunal for Scotland and the Mental Welfare Commission for Scotland. I asked why a short-term detention certificate lasts for 28 days and whether the period could be reduced. Both witnesses broadly agreed that it takes between three and four weeks to get all the relevant reports ready so that an informed assessment can be made, so the number has not been plucked out of thin air. On balance, do the witnesses think that 28 days is about right?

10:00  

We also heard last week that 70 to 80 per cent of tribunal hearings take place within the 28 days plus the five-day extension period, so the proposed additional five days would not be needed in those cases. It was suggested to us that the main reason for an extension from five to 10 days is to reduce the need for the repeat tribunals that happen in 20 to 30 per cent of cases and to give relevant family members more time to make statements and representations.

I suppose that that brings us to the crux of the matter. There is always a balance to be struck in relation to the rights of individuals who are detained. Last week we heard that 28 days is about right and that the intention behind the proposed extension is not to let people work right up to the wire but to reduce the number of repeat tribunals and give families more time to have a say. Do the professionals who are here today concur with that view? The committee has to make a judgment.



Health and Sport Committee 07 October 2014 : Tuesday, October 07, 2014
Bob Doris

Karin Campbell has hit the nail on the head. First, the committee will of course explore the numbers that were outlined, whether it is a question of 20 additional reports or 493. We will look at the pressures, at workforce planning and at recruitment retention. Those points matter, and we will be asking the relevant people in Government and elsewhere the questions.

The bigger picture is: are those reports required? Are they essential? Are they highly desirable? Are they just a slight advance on how things are now? I have not really heard from people about how desirable the reports would be. I want to make a judgment on whether that is the right thing to do, and then I want to make a judgment on how we resource it and enable it to happen.

I feel that, so far, the discussion has been on whether we can resource the reports and enable them to happen. We will look at those figures as a committee, and I am sure that we will make a well-rounded decision on that issue in due course. However, we have not heard enough—apart from Ms Campbell—about whether that step is desirable. I would like some information about how desirable or otherwise it is.



Health and Sport Committee 07 October 2014 : Tuesday, October 07, 2014
Bob Doris

I seek clarification on a couple of points. I have no idea whether the proposed extension to the time for detaining people is the right thing to do; I have no preconceived views on the matter. I was not sure whether Mr Barron was saying that the period should not be extended. The Mental Welfare Commission said that we probably should not extend it, as it does not think that it will lead to any greater involvement from the RMOs—rather than saying that extending the period would necessarily be a bad thing in itself, or that it would not have the intended consequence. I might have picked you up wrongly, but are you suggesting that the current power to detain should not exist? I got the sense that you were saying that it is not a positive thing in the first place.

Secondly, my understanding is that only some nurses—mental health nurses and learning disability nurses—have the power to detain. Have such nurses across Scotland taken a view on the matter and raised concerns specifically about the current two-hour detention? If they have, the committee would wish to know about that.



Health and Sport Committee 07 October 2014 : Tuesday, October 07, 2014
Bob Doris

I will digest that point. I am not trying to be awkward, but I was not clear about the point that you were making.

A point was made earlier about detention being given in 74 per cent of cases once the RMO had arrived; often that was just a short-term detention, but it was given.

In the minority of cases, in which detention would be required for the safety of the individual, what would be the consequence if the nurse did not have the power to detain? I accept that the more power of detention that is given, the more the rights and freedoms of individuals in society are infringed. However, there has to be a balance because, at the same time, we are seeking to protect vulnerable individuals. Is there any benefit in an extension from two to three hours? I am trying to tease that out.



Health and Sport Committee 07 October 2014 : Tuesday, October 07, 2014
Bob Doris

There is no reason for asking this other than that I am interested to know. When you talk about taking the views of senior nurses throughout Scotland, has the RCN done a deep survey of nurses in mental health, for example nurses on the wards in mental health units and those who work hands on, at the coalface, with learning disabilities? Are you describing a grass-roots view or a senior clinician view? It may be both, which is fine, but I want to get a flavour of where the view is coming from.



Health and Sport Committee 07 October 2014 : Tuesday, October 07, 2014
Bob Doris

That is really helpful. Thank you.



Health and Sport Committee 02 October 2014 : Thursday, October 02, 2014
Bob Doris (Glasgow) (SNP)

I suppose that, as a Glasgow MSP, I should start by thanking the organising committee for doing an amazing job. Very well done. I should also say gently that you were in listening mode, and people moved on very quickly in relation to the proposal to use the Red Road flats as part of the opening ceremony: once the city moved on, we just moved on, and it was a wonderful opening ceremony.

My constituency office sits on Sauchiehall Street, and for the fortnight I saw there how the city changed. It was an amazing thing to see, and that change is still really relevant. Some of the main thoroughfares in Glasgow have still not seen a diminution of interest from tourists and visitors. It has been a wonderful experience and I cannot commend all the partners enough.

I have two or three focused—I hope—questions that are driven by personal experience. I got to go to one event. I never thought that I would go to see a female heavyweight weightlifting contest at the Scottish Exhibition and Conference Centre, but I did that and it was remarkable. I got a ticket the day before by turning up at a ticket booth in George Square, where I bumped into a neighbour of mine who was doing exactly the same thing. I am not just telling this story for the sake of it, I assure you, as my first question is on accessibility and affordability of tickets.

Is there scope for a national ticketing strategy for large-scale sporting events or similar major events? Are there lessons to be learned about how ticketing is organised and how tickets are made affordable and accessible, including at short notice, and can they be rolled out nationally? I accept that that would have to be done through local authority partners and other stakeholders, but do you believe that there is progress to be made in getting ticketing strategies right for other major events?



Health and Sport Committee 02 October 2014 : Thursday, October 02, 2014
Bob Doris

I suppose that my point is that affordability for all should be a key underlying principle for all major sporting events in Scotland. I accept that there are different business models, and you pointed out that there are tensions between maximising income and having accessibility for all. I am just suggesting that, as part of any organisation’s corporate and social responsibilities, whether it is organising a single-sport event such as a football game or a multisport event such as the Commonwealth games, some form of affordability check is done so that all sections of society are included. That should apply to the Ryder cup as well.

Are there any underlying principles that Glasgow 2014 used and which could be disseminated across Scotland—not, I should say, in a statutory way—for others to look at?

11:15  
Vote DetailMSP VoteResult

S4M-11123 Joe FitzPatrick on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau: Business Motion—That the Parliament
>> Show more
YesCarried

S4M-11114.2 Kenny MacAskill: Policing—As an amendment to motion S4M-11114 in the name of Graeme Pear
>> Show more
YesCarried

S4M-11114 Graeme Pearson: Policing—That the Parliament acknowledges that policing in Scotland contin
>> Show more
YesCarried

S4M-11116.1.1 Patrick Harvie: Scotland’s Future—As an amendment to amendment S4M-11116.1 in the name
>> Show more
YesCarried

S4M-11116.1 Nicola Sturgeon: Scotland’s Future—As an amendment to motion S4M-11116 in the name of Jo
>> Show more
YesCarried

S4M-11116 Johann Lamont: Scotland’s Future—That the Parliament recognises the result of the independ
>> Show more
YesCarried

Amendment 61 moved by Elaine Murray on motion S4M-11101 Kenny MacAskill: Courts Reform (Scotland) Bi
>> Show more
NoDefeated

Amendment 62 moved by Margaret Mitchell on motion S4M-11101 Kenny MacAskill: Courts Reform (Scotland
>> Show more
NoDefeated

Amendment 63 moved by Margaret Mitchell on motion S4M-11101 Kenny MacAskill: Courts Reform (Scotland
>> Show more
NoDefeated

Amendment 64 moved by Margaret Mitchell on motion S4M-11101 Kenny MacAskill: Courts Reform (Scotland
>> Show more
NoDefeated

Search for other Motions lodged by Bob Doris
EventIdTypeSub TypeMSP NameParty NameConstituencyRegionTitleItemTextFormattedAnswer DateAnswerStatusIdExpectedAnswerDateAnsweredByMspApprovedDateSubmissionDateMeetingDateProductionStatusIdRecordStatusIdStatus DateOnBehalfOfConsideredForMembersBusinessCrossPartySupportRegisteredInterestSupportCountSupportDateIsEventLinkCurrentMinister
Motion S4M-11209: Bob Doris, Glasgow, Scottish National Party, Date Lodged: 14/10/2014 Show Full Motion >>
Motion S4M-11176: Bob Doris, Glasgow, Scottish National Party, Date Lodged: 09/10/2014 Show Full Motion >>
Motion S4M-11131: Bob Doris, Glasgow, Scottish National Party, Date Lodged: 07/10/2014 Show Full Motion >>
Motion S4M-11032: Bob Doris, Glasgow, Scottish National Party, Date Lodged: 29/09/2014 Show Full Motion >>
Motion S4M-10875: Bob Doris, Glasgow, Scottish National Party, Date Lodged: 22/08/2014 Show Full Motion >>
Motion S4M-10871: Bob Doris, Glasgow, Scottish National Party, Date Lodged: 21/08/2014 Show Full Motion >>
Motion S4M-10862: Bob Doris, Glasgow, Scottish National Party, Date Lodged: 21/08/2014 Show Full Motion >>
Motion S4M-10816: Bob Doris, Glasgow, Scottish National Party, Date Lodged: 15/08/2014 Show Full Motion >>
Motion S4M-10610: Bob Doris, Glasgow, Scottish National Party, Date Lodged: 15/07/2014 Show Full Motion >>
Motion S4M-10608: Bob Doris, Glasgow, Scottish National Party, Date Lodged: 14/07/2014 Show Full Motion >>
Search for other Questions asked by Bob Doris
EventIdTypeSub TypeMSP NameParty NameConstituencyRegionTitleItemTextFormattedAnswer DateAnswerStatusIdExpectedAnswerDateAnsweredByMspApprovedDateSubmissionDateMeetingDateProductionStatusIdRecordStatusIdStatus DateOnBehalfOfConsideredForMembersBusinessCrossPartySupportRegisteredInterestSupportCountSupportDateIsEventLinkCurrentMinister
Question S4T-00793: Bob Doris, Glasgow, Scottish National Party, Date Lodged: 29/09/2014 Show Full Question >>
Question S4O-03495: Bob Doris, Glasgow, Scottish National Party, Date Lodged: 11/08/2014 Show Full Question >>
Question S4F-02244: Bob Doris, Glasgow, Scottish National Party, Date Lodged: 04/08/2014 Show Full Question >>
Question S4O-03440: Bob Doris, Glasgow, Scottish National Party, Date Lodged: 30/07/2014 Show Full Question >>
Question S4W-22042: Bob Doris, Glasgow, Scottish National Party, Date Lodged: 03/07/2014 Show Full Question >>
Question S4W-22041: Bob Doris, Glasgow, Scottish National Party, Date Lodged: 03/07/2014 Show Full Question >>
Question S4W-21768: Bob Doris, Glasgow, Scottish National Party, Date Lodged: 13/06/2014 Show Full Question >>
Question S4O-03209: Bob Doris, Glasgow, Scottish National Party, Date Lodged: 07/05/2014 Show Full Question >>
Question S4O-03134: Bob Doris, Glasgow, Scottish National Party, Date Lodged: 16/04/2014 Show Full Question >>
Question S4W-20593: Bob Doris, Glasgow, Scottish National Party, Date Lodged: 03/04/2014 Show Full Question >>

Further information

Email our Public Information Service for more information.