18/10/2016 Scotland 2016

for a new immigration removal centre near Glasgow Airport.

But will it mean a fairer deal for those

But will it mean a fairer deal for those being detained?

The controversial Dungavel Removal Centre in Lanarkshire

is to close next year, but critics fear its replacement

And Aberdeen businesses are welcoming breastfeeding women -

but why is it still an issue for some?

So Dungavel - a name synonomous with controversy.

Over the years, Scotland's only detention centre

Today, we saw the plans for its replacement.

The proposed new facility near Glasgow Airport will hold less

than a quarter of the immigrants Dungavel has, and is

as a "short-term holding facility", but what will it mean

This is Dungavel Removal Centre, currently the only place in Scotland

are legal immigrant can be held before deportation. It is

controversial and not long for this world. Last month the Home Office,

responsible for immigration policy, said it would close Dungavel which

holds up to 249 people. Why? Refugee campaigners allege conditions were

racist and inhumane. Last year it was the focus of protests with

claims that people were being held there for too long. Children were

also held that until 2010. The last DQ knees will leave in 2017. -- the

last people believe. And this is the proposal for the new short-term

holding facility. It is a former British Airways staff social club,

close to Glasgow Airport. At the plans are still waiting approval

iron Fisher Council. If it gains planning permission -- approval by

Renfrewshire Council. If it gains at Yeovil -- approval, it will hold far

fewer places than Dungavel. As it is close to Glasgow Airport the

government said people can be easily moved to London, from where they say

most removals take place. This lawyer has dealt with thousands of

immigration cases and says the protests may just be one reason why

Dungavel is closing. We need to have very short-term holding facilities

used as a last resort, not for victims of torture, pregnant women

or children, but the tension can be necessary. The closure of Dungavel

is not moving to a step of no detention but that those who will be

detained will not be in Scotland but transported by air travel or by van,

8-12 hours, down to London. The key problem with that approach is access

to legal representatives in Scotland is frustrated. When someone is in

the South East, they can we do not have access to legal representation,

family and support networks, creating an access to justice issue.

Last year, an opinion poll said no one should be held for more than 28

days and some organisations want further changes. I think there is a

real opportunity here for us all to think imaginatively about how we

deal with people who are seeking asylum and other irregular migrants.

There is a real chance to look at alternatives to detention and look

at how we make better decisions in various processes and reduce the

extent to which we use the tension and I'd like to see discussions

around that take place. In a statement, the Home Office said...

There is wide public support for strong policy illegal migrants. The

challenge for the government is to enforce it fairly.

Well, we did ask the Conservatives for any one of their MSPs or MPs

to join us this evening to discuss this issue,

but they told us nobody was available.

We also asked the Home Office for an interview with a minister.

They declined, but as you saw in that report, they told us

The new facility would be more efficient and save money.

on Immigration, Asylum and Border Control, Stuart McDonald,

was available to speak to us a little earlier, from Westminster.

Stuart MacDonald, you have long been a critic of Dungavel and you must be

happy about needing more for these new plans for a new centre in

Glasgow? I have long been a critic of immigration and attention as a

whole but not particularly happy with the plans to close Dungavel and

put a new centre in Glasgow. The reason is I am against immigration

detention because I want to see far fewer folk detained it should be

last resort rather than routine. And I hear no indication that that is

division between the closure of Dungavel, so we will not see your

fork detained but people moved much further away from France, family,

support networks and indeed immigration law representatives. --

farther away from friends. And other detained in significant centres that

are significantly worse than Dungavel. But detention and removal

are an essential part of any immigration policy. You need to have

the centres, don't you? There is a case for having small immigration

detention centres as a matter of last resort, most countries in

Europe have that, but the Conservative government is at the

extreme in European terms, in terms of the number of people detained and

in terms of how long it detains people for, and at the end of the

date immigration detention is hugely expensive, utterly ineffective in

helping the government achieve what it wants to do, and also most

importantly completely inhumane and we see pregnant people detained,

victims of torture detained, and that is why we want to see an end to

this, but closing Dungavel will not do that but move the problem

elsewhere. When you see the centre should be only a last resort, are

you referring to people who have committed other criminal acts? This

is to facilitate removal of people who have no right to be here, but

you find in the United Kingdom, in actual fact, 50% of people released

and not removed to go back out into the public, and a higher percentage

in Dungavel, so it just does not work, but there will be a small

number of people for which detention is ultimately required to effect

removal, perhaps for example if they have posed a danger to the public,

but routine detention is not acceptable, particularly for people

like pregnant women and torture survivors, people with mental health

problems. Are you not encouraged that this will be, as the Home

Office says, is short-term holding facility? It will have fewer beds

than Dungavel, 51 as against 250 at Dungavel. I am not encouraged. They

will be held for a short time in Glasgow, but that does not tell me

that they will be held for a short period in the UK overall. But they

could be moved to places which are, every time inspected, throwing up

horror stories. That is in contrast to Dungavel. I want to see it closed

because it is a detention centre. But Dungavel is a much safer place

than many other places. What we will find ultimately is people moved from

Dungavel to these unacceptable detention centres around London, he

will not see fewer of people detained over. But people moved to

the Glasgow Central, it has been suggested by the Scottish legal aid

board is one of the problems that Dungavel is it is quite a distance

from all stop the lawyers in Glasgow and Edinburgh, so at least that

there is a new centre, they are closer? -- from most of the lawyers.

The future is that we will only be in Glasgow for such a short space of

time, they will not have access to lawyers either. But in London, there

could be no legal aid at all, and it is a completely different legal

jurisdiction, making legal advice much harder, not easier. Thank you

very much. it's been illegal to bar women

from breastfeeding in public. So why is it almost

half of new mums Well, in Aberdeen, dozens of cafes,

shops and restaurants have begun displaying signs in their windows

to let mothers know they're Breast-feeding in public, still a

fill-in uncommon sight. But that could be about to change. Businesses

in Aberdeen are signing up to display their breast-feeding

credentials. It normalise things best -- it normalises breast-feeding

really. I did not have many negative encounters but it is very career in

public and it has a taboo. It is healthy to normalise it. How much of

a stigma that you think exists about breast-feeding in public still?

They're probably still is a stigma within some groups, but I think,

with acknowledgements of public awareness such as this, hopefully

times are changing and it is becoming more accepted. Across the

whole population, I guess. It is welcoming, I have been desperate to

feed and wondered if it was all right. Having that sign, saying

you're welcome, it is helpful. I think still in this country,

computer Sweden where I come from, you realised he people breast-feed

out in public. -- compared to Sweden. And good that people can go

out and have safe places to breast-feed where you know you are

comfortable and there are facilities to change babies and just be left

alone to feed them. This is one of more than 60 cafes, shops and

restaurants in Aberdeen city centre that have signed up to the scheme,

displaying the local saying they are breast-feeding friendly, so that

women can see it is safe and secure for them to breast-feed. A lot of

stigma still exists for breast-feeding in public, but the

aim of the scheme is too rigid that and actually make it more acceptable

to the public. -- to ridges that. It is when an's right to breast-feed in

public but it is making it easier to do that. This cavity is already at

even -- this place is already at haven for breast-feeding mums, but

now it is official. That has been no negativity, we have been bold enough

to say, come in, breast-feed. Breast-feeding class for new mothers

in a maternity ward in the 1980s. Back then, nursing a baby in public

would have been almost unheard of and would have undoubtedly caused a

stir. How do the old generation of mothers feel about this new scheme?

We get a lot of old ladies going past who have said, this is a nice

group, we tell them it is a breast-feeding group and they have

said they wished there was that support back when they were

breast-feeding. At my age, we did not do it, but it is all changing

now, very good. Wind your WordPress feeding tube would not have gone

into a public place -- when you were breast-feeding, you would not have

gone into a public place? I would have if it was happening, but

everything had to be hidden. This is the local to look out for, dotted

across Aberdeen city centre, but it is expanding into rural areas,

another important step to a breast-feeding friendly society.

Well, I'm joined from London by the SNP MP, Kirsty Blackman,

who's argued that parliament needs to become more family-friendly,

who's a member of NHS Grampian Breastfeeding Peer Support.

Kirsty, would you say that breast-feeding in public is still a

taboo? I think it is hard for some women to breast-feed in public.

Actually part of that is because they are worrying about other

people's reactions. I had to children and breast-fed. Them in

public. In fact the first place was Aberdeen airport, which was mad and

busy to start off with, and in my experience, you actually get fewer

negative reactions than you expect, but I think the fear is there. The

worry is there before you go out, whether or not someone will

negatively react to you feeding your baby in public. Ivey, is that your

experience, Wash is -- experience? Absolutely, as a peer supporter, I

see women at the village talking about the fear of somebody saying

something, knocking confidence, when they are trying to get established

and I always tell them, look out for the local, safe places you can go

where no one can't bother you and you can feed your baby as you are

meant to. You think the fear is more imagined than real?

So you think the fear is more imagined than real? Unfortunately I

don't think so. Two gentleman today called me over and said they didn't

agree with breast-feeding and that somebody was breast-feeding around

them and he happened to see it he would be a pervert. That is the

thing, because it seems in this society we see breasts in a

sexualised way rather than something important to raising a child? One of

the issues we have across the UK and Scotland as we don't have high

breast-feeding rates any more so it is kind of a vicious cycle, once

people stop breast-feeding people think it is strange and they stop

seeing breasts for what their purpose is, and it is a vicious

cycle we need to break out of and we need to make sure it is normal

again. Do you think that is part of the problem, it is not just

breast-feeding in public but breast-feeding in itself. We have

only one in 200 breast-feeding after a year but in France and Canada it

is almost one in ten. It is not just about breast-feeding a tiny baby as

the World Health Organisation recommends until two. Rates are

pretty good up until six weeks and then they stop and it is beneficial

for more than just tiny babies. We can tell from your accent you are

from the USA, attitude any better over there? It is mixed depending

we're in the States. I grew up in Mitch Eadie on and I was nervous

when I went back last Christmas. I had no problems but you never know

and the laws don't always depending bounce-mac protects you depending on

the region. As bad as the attitudes may be, breast-feeding is better

than the United States than here. What is the situation like in the

House of Commons? I know you have long battled with the authorities to

make it more family friendly and you were censured for bringing your

children into a committee hearing, we can you breast-feed in the Houses

of Parliament? I have not tried it but it is not particularly child or

breast-feeding friendly. They are known as public access to the

buildings and I would be hugely supportive of anyone women coming in

being able to breast-feed wherever they were in the building. We have

family room in the House of Commons specifically for members and their

children, and just to show you how it is coming into the 21st-century,

the family room has just in the past six months got a baby changing

station. Certainly, the owner is not a huge amount of awareness and

acceptance that parents are going to have small children, and I think it

is particularly important for people coming to give evidence to

committees, for example. We are seeing not many women coming

together of evidence and maybe childcare and breast-feeding as a

barrier so we are looking at making those changes. And you say you never

breast-fed in the house of parliament but have you seen any

other is doing that? I am part of the all-party group so there are

women who commented that that group and to see people on that group and

they bring babies and have breast-fed, and I breast-fed in the

council chamber when I was a counsellor. We need to keep doing

these things and making these moves in order that Parliament and

Councils are dragged into the 21st-century. Do you really think

the House of Commons debating chamber would be unacceptable place

to breast-feed a baby? I don't intend to breast-feed in the House

of Commons chamber but if you want to speak any debate you maybe have

to set for seven hours. If your MP has a baby then they might have to

miss taking part in that debate and I don't think it is fear for the

electorate to be disadvantaged just because a mother can't take her baby

into the Commons chamber. I don't think babies should be interrupting

proceedings but if there's an expectation on mothers to set for

seven hours, I don't think they can do that. Do you think the problem

generally as people are uncomfortable with the women's

bodies? Yes, that is definitely it. People try to make everything

sexualised, adverts on TV, but breasts are to feed babies and it is

a wonderful and beautiful thing to be able to feed your child. And how

much of a difference to you think this new initiative in Aberdeen will

make? Is it already making a difference? I think so. I know I

always tell people about it, they come to the peer support group I

help run. It gives them that extra bit of confidence and when you first

have baby it is very difficult to get breast-feeding established, let

alone get out of the house. You want to help take that worry off of

running into an incident that would make them feel more uncomfortable.

Do you think that people in society have a problem with women's bodies?

I think some people do and we need to get away from that. Breasts are

for feeding babies and we need to be clear about that.

Well, to discuss that and the rest of today's stories,

I'm joined by the journalist, Katie Grant, and by

the former editor of the Times in Scotland, Magnus Linklater.

Let's talk first of all about the Dungavel detention centre, being

replaced by a smaller facility so presumably that means more refugees

being transported down to England? Yes, it is described as a holding

centre, and a very short time they will be there, so the question, I

suppose, is does that give them enough time to see a lawyer, to have

a case heard, to make all the investigations they need to make?

Presumably know who they will be shifted down south and that activity

will be down in England rather than up year, and the interesting thing

about it is, of course, the Scottish Government, which is much more keen

to see more immigration has no control over this whatsoever. They

didn't like Dungavel, and I was interested in the interview earlier,

there was a suggestion that Don Gable might have been a better

option! It was a horrible place surrounded by barbed wire and people

spent far too long in it, but it allowed access to lawyers and four

cases to be heard. And there is a worry that if more people have to go

down to facilities near London it means they don't have access to,

perhaps, family support from friends, but also the legal aid

system is funded differently down there as well? It is a no-win

situation, you have people there for too long or you have holding

facility that looks better but they are only supposed to stay for the

week and then taken back down to the South, so I don't know what the real

answer is but we need to find some way .Mac we cannot just keep

shelving it, we have to find some way of dealing with it, so that this

new facility will help with that then it is good, but presumably

nothing is set in stone and I imagine if it is not helping

something will be done. There's a big cost factor and I noticed that

the British government's statement made it quite clear it was a

cost-saving exercise. If they turned around to the Scottish Government

and said, will you look after these people, you must be the cost, I

wonder whether the Scottish Government would be very happy about

that. We had an interesting conversation about breast-feeding

and it was interesting, I think the law was passed in 2005 in the

Scottish parliament which made it illegal to discriminate against

women if they were breast-feeding any public place, but it sounds as

if it is one of those cases where laws alone do not change attitudes

and you sometimes need schemes like the one starting in Aberdeen. It is

often a generational thing. I grew up and dry they say Katie grew up in

an atmosphere where it was frowned upon and people were embarrassed by

it and frowned upon it. That has changed quite rapidly and I think

everybody is pretty tolerant snow. I am the wrong person to ask, but the

question for me, would be is the woman happy with her surroundings,

feeding her baby in those surroundings, in a public place. The

chamber of the House of Commons is the very last place I would want to

feed my baby, what about you? I would agree because babies are quite

distracting for the mother, because obviously your main preoccupation is

the baby. I agree, I think it is important to be comfortable but I

also took the point that if in there for seven hours you have baby you're

likely to have to have to feed the baby. I like the idea of the

initiative in Aberdeen because I think you are right and the law is

not enough, you have to change people's attitudes, and it wasn't

that in my day people didn't like breast-feeding but they didn't want

to see it, so there's a push to breast-feeding .Mac we read

sometimes stories in the papers about Nigel Farage famously once

making a rather disparaging comments about breast-feeding women, but are

just the exceptions? Sometimes they just see it for effect and I think

most people know, and I was at a conference the other day when

somebody was breast-feeding and nobody made any remark at all, and I

think now one of the things about having a baby as if you are going to

breast-feed it used to be quite lonely, you used to be by yourself a

lot and you felt you had to be on your own, and so I think this

initiative is great because it will get women out there and it is very

nice to be with the lot of other women who also have babies so it

will have more of an effect than just making women more comfortable

feeding their babies in public. Let's talk about the gift that keeps

on giving. David Coburn, the Scottish Ukip MEP,

says he would consider standing for the party leadership

he was asked. Ukip is looking for a new leader

following the shock resignation of Diane James, who lasted 18 days

in the top job. A lot of people suggested it but I

will wait to see what people say. It is more important we can get

somebody we can all unite around but obviously I have some experience of

running Scotland so that would be helpful. We have a lot of very

talented people in Ukip and we need to settle on somebody who will do a

good job we can all agree with and that is the main thing. So is David

Coburn a worthy candidate in your review? I don't know, we saw him in

those TV debates and it wouldn't have said he was cutting edge, so I

question whether he really has the calibre to lead the party, but on

the other hand it seems to me like an only double party, a party that

is falling apart. --. Whatever you say about Nigel Farage, he held the

party together, and now they have achieved their principal objective

and seemed to have lost sight of what they stand for. Leading it will

be a challenge. Is it a problem that there is no obvious successor? The

residents because every time there is one Nigel Farage has to come and

be the successor. Please let David Coburn be the leader because there

would be a huge implosion that would end them. Do you think he would be

divisive? Surely not. The party has no purpose, the purposes a platform

for Nigel Farage, and when he is not about it has no purpose. Number ten

says it is very likely MPs will be able to vote on the final Brexit

deal reached by the EU, quite a significant move? It is but it won't

be enough for many MPs who want to be able to vote on it, they want to

be able to vote before the final negotiation is made so they can have

some influence but as it stands we will only be able to vote on the

deal once it is done, and it will be too late. They want be able to break

it up at that stage. They could vote against it giving a majority of MPs

were for Remain? But at that late stage, 2019, when the deal is done,

it would be a brave Parliament that would try to pull back from the

brink. Do you think it is a formality and they will just have to

go a long? I think they will, they are a band if they do and damp that

they don't but we are quite myopic. We are pretending the House of

Commons will be the final arbiter. The 27 other states of Europe will

be the final arbiters, so what we say is only part of one enormous

argument that is going on, so to dress this up is that it is somehow

taking back control is not correct. Thank you both very much indeed.

That's it for tonight. Thanks for watching.

I'm back again tomorrow night, usual time.