Thank you for the question, which was very well put. We think that a lot more can be done to maximise data-sharing opportunities around the foreseeable event of the Home Office using its powers under immigration legislation to apprehend somebody, to detain them, and, in some cases, to use Police Scotland’s custodial facilities en route to a detention centre, be that Dungavel or one in another part of the UK.
When I say data-sharing opportunities, we recognise that there might be limitations on what can be shared with the third sector on those issues, but we certainly hope that some information can be shared, especially when there are pre-existing mandates in place, which there often are. The legal representative who will provide independent advice will be a pivotal person for the individual in relation to their rights. We hope that those representatives will consistently be centrally involved, but we do not think that is always the case in relation to Home Office activities that use immigration detention powers.
As John McKenzie and Graeme Stirling were saying, opportunities are needed to involve local statutory bodies such as the health and social care partnerships. One of the things that we would like to see in the coming years for the particularly vulnerable group of persons who are subject to immigration powers is a multi-agency process that involves Scottish statutory bodies and, to the extent that it is appropriate, third sector bodies. That is a very important protection factor.
Something that I wanted to mention today—which I will do now, with the convener’s forbearance—is the fact that the Home Office is not very good at assessing vulnerability. Over the past two years, it has moved to what it calls the adults at risk policy, which informs whether people are put into detention or not. The Stephen Shaw review and its iteration at the UK level earlier this year confirmed that the way that the Home Office is applying its adults at risk policy is a work in progress. Ancillary to that is that the Home Office is not consistently applying what is known as the rule 35 policy in the way that it should.
The thread that goes between the policies is that people who have vulnerabilities, particularly mental health issues, should really not be put into immigration detention in the first place, but we see far too often—it is borne out by evidence from across the UK—that that is what happens. We are concerned about the Home Office making that type of life-changing and far-reaching adverse decision that affects the liberty of individuals who really should not be incarcerated at all because they have often not committed serious crimes. People in the asylum process have committed no crimes whatsoever.
As John McKenzie rightly said, the police have primacy over the care, wellbeing, health and access to rights of people who are routed through Police Scotland facilities. We think that there is an important opportunity for Police Scotland to ensure that the people in its custodial facilities who the Home Office are saying should be detained actually should have been detained in the first place. That gets to the heart of one of our concerns. We know how the Home Office operates with issues around detention. It is not just me saying that there are concerns about that; it can be backed up by evidence that has been taken over a number of years.
Given the evidential background that the Home Office is not good at assessing vulnerability, including in relation to the use of its far-reaching detention powers, it is important that we in Scotland maximise opportunities to make sure that their use affects only the people in relation to whom their use is justified and lawful.