The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

SUPPORTING SAFER, STRONGER COMMUNITIES
CONSULTATION ON COMMUNITY JUSTICE AUTHORITIES

SECTION ONE
>>>FUNCTIONS AND STRUCTURE

1. FUNCTIONS AND STRUCTURE

The primary aim of the new framework is to improve the management of offenders through greater integration of the activities of criminal justice agencies with the ultimate aim of reducing levels of reoffending in Scotland.

1.1 Community Justice Authorities (CJAs)

The members of CJAs will be drawn from the membership of local authorities lying within the CJA area, thereby effectively bringing individual councils together for the purposes of:

• Developing a Strategic Area Plan for the management of offenders in liaison with the Scottish Prison Service and other partners;
• Receiving and distributing amongst local authorities funds provided by Ministers for criminal justice social work under section 27A of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968;
• Promoting and sharing good practice;
• Monitoring and reporting on local authority performance; If necessary intervening to ensure the local authority elements of the area plan are delivered; and
• Carrying out wider monitoring and reporting functions on other partners, including SPS.

Each CJA will be a separate body from the constituent local authorities. It is likely that in most cases the area covered by a CJA will comprise the area of two or more local authorities, however the Bill does not preclude a CJA covering the area of a single local authority. The role of CJAs will be strategic, and distinct from that of individual councils. There is no change to the current legal position by which local authorities are responsible for delivering criminal justice social work functions on the ground, principally under the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 and Social Work (Scotland) Act 1995.

1.2 Scottish Prison Service (SPS)

The SPS will remain responsible for the operational delivery of services within prisons. The Criminal Justice Plan announced Ministers' intention to issue a new Framework Document for the SPS. This was published on 4 March and is available on the SPS website ( http://www.sps.gov.uk/keydocs/framework/default.asp) . As the SPS is an Executive Agency the appropriate means for setting in place performance management arrangements will be through guidance issued to the SPS under this new Framework Document. This guidance will be prepared in consultation with the SPS, local government and other interested organisations prior to issue by Ministers.

The Management of Offenders etc. (Scotland) Bill will create new area-based partnerships by placing local authorities and Scottish Ministers through the SPS under new duties to co-operate and share information in relation to the management of offenders and bring them together in a new joint planning and reporting framework. In each area the new CJA will take lead responsibility for co-ordinating the area plan and producing the annual report in consultation with the SPS and other partners. New performance management arrangements will be put in place for both the SPS and local authorities.

1.3 Boundary considerations and issues

To achieve the improvements in service which the consultation said were needed, it is critical that CJAs are established on boundaries which will both support the strengthening of local relationships and the delivery of a national strategy. It is important that the new structure should build on existing good practice in joint working. Our proposals therefore build on existing CJSW Groupings. They also take into consideration the existing structures of other criminal justice partners. Ministers have taken account of a number of further considerations in guiding their decisions.

• The number of authorities included within the area should be large enough to provide significant opportunities for the local sharing of resources and expertise, particularly for specialist functions, and mutual learning.
• The smaller the number of CJAs the easier communication will be with national agencies and the more likely that Chief Officers will be able to liaise with each other easily and form an effective network.
• The smaller number of area partnership plans which require to be considered by the Minister and the national advisory body, the more likely it is that such consideration will be undertaken in sufficient depth and within a reasonable timescale.
• The larger the number of authorities in a CJA, the more complex the CJA's co-ordination task will be.
• The larger the area covered by a CJA, the more important it will be that the area plan leaves space for continued local decision-making over the detail of day-to-day delivery.
• A very small number of authorities in a CJA may make the funding distribution and performance monitoring role more difficult to deliver.
• The more different in scale individual CJAs are from one another, the more difficult it will be to expect similar things of each.

Whilst there are some tensions between the principles outlined above, the Executive believes that on balance these principles point towards a significant reduction in the number of funding and planning units from the current 14 units - 8 partnerships and 6 councils acting independently (see paragraph on Current Structure in the introduction). Taking these principles into account the following paragraphs propose two alternative configurations for the CJAs either of which the Executive believes would provide a good future framework for local partnership working.

1.4 Glasgow

The Management of Offenders etc. (Scotland) Bill does not preclude CJAs covering a single council. The scale of provision in Glasgow, which receives almost 20% of national funds, would make it difficult to achieve an equitable partnership with other surrounding local authorities. Recent inspection evidence would also suggest that there is a need to focus on improvements necessary to provision in Glasgow. Ministers therefore propose that Glasgow should be a self-standing CJA. As in the rest of Scotland, the CJA would be a separate body from the Council, with all the same statutory duties and functions, including the duty to appoint a chief officer. Its members would be appointed by Glasgow City Council.

1.5 Options for CJA Structure

Taking Scotland as a whole, Ministers propose two options for how CJAs should be structured. These options are four CJAs based on the Scottish Court Service (SCS) areas or six CJAs based on sheriffdoms.

Option 1 Four CJAs based on SCS areas

The SCS is currently responsible for the administration of the courts (other than the District Courts) and is organised on three areas - North, East and West. In this option, the CJAs would be based on these areas plus a CJA for Glasgow (see Para 1.4):

Glasgow

North - Aberdeenshire, Aberdeen City, Moray, Highland, and the Islands* (Orkney, Shetland and Eilean Siar).

East - Fife, Clackmannanshire, Falkirk, Stirling, Angus, Dundee City, Perth and Kinross, City of Edinburgh, East Lothian, West Lothian, Midlothian and Scottish Borders.

West - Argyll and Bute, East Dunbartonshire, West Dunbartonshire, East Renfrewshire, Renfrewshire, Inverclyde, North Lanarkshire, South Lanarkshire, East Ayrshire, North Ayrshire, South Ayrshire, Dumfries and Galloway.

* But see paragraph 1.7 below for a discussion of the specific issues relating to the Island authorities.

This would not split up any of the existing CJSW groupings, SCS areas (other than Glasgow), Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS) or Local Criminal Justice Boards (LCJB). It would not split police forces with the exception in Strathclyde of the separation of Glasgow. A map showing the boundaries for this option is at Annex C. The existing Tayside Partnership (Angus, Dundee City, Perth and Kinross) is shown in the Eastern CJA in line with the SCS areas but could be considered for inclusion in the Northern CJA.

This is the smallest number of CJAs the Executive believes is workable and would provide the strongest base for implementation of a national strategy and generally ease communication and consistency at a national level. Each of these CJAs would have significant critical mass. This structure would enable the Executive to monitor activity and effectiveness in carrying out their functions which would assist with strategic direction and national level accountability. On the other hand the size of each authority would mean that the internal co-ordination task would be more challenging, and it could be difficult to sustain a sufficient degree of common identity in each CJA.

Option 2 Six CJAs based on sheriffdoms

An alternative option would be one broadly based on the six sheriffdoms. Each sheriffdom has a Sheriff Principal who in addition to hearing appeals in civil matters has responsibility for the conduct of the Sheriff courts in the area.

Glasgow

Grampian, Highland and Islands* (Aberdeenshire, Aberdeen City, Moray, Highland, Orkney, Shetland, Eilean Siar)

Tayside, Central and Fife (Angus, Dundee City, Perth and Kinross, Fife, Clackmannanshire, Falkirk, Stirling)

Lothians and Borders (City of Edinburgh, East Lothian, West Lothian, Midlothian, Scottish Borders)

North Strathclyde (Argyll and Bute, East Dunbartonshire, West Dunbartonshire, East Renfrewshire, Renfrewshire, Inverclyde)

South Strathclyde (North and South Lanarkshire, East, North and South Ayrshire, Dumfries and Galloway)

*But see paragraph 1.7 below for a discussion of the specific issues relating to the Island authorities.

The six CJA areas would be based on the six sheriffdoms but would take into account the fact that local authority and sheriffdom boundaries are not coterminous in the area surrounding Glasgow. Glasgow City would still be a single authority: the Strathkelvin area of East Dunbartonshire is in the sheriffdom of Glasgow & Strathkelvin, as is the Rutherglen area of South Lanarkshire, but to avoid splitting these Councils we think it is preferable to put the whole of East Dunbartonshire and the whole of South Lanarkshire into the North Strathclyde CJA. The issue of coterminosity is discussed further in paragraph 1.6.

There is a further difference from the sheriffdoms. This option includes North Ayrshire in South Strathclyde (rather than in the sheriffdom of North Strathclyde) to avoid breaking up the working links already built up in the Ayrshire grouping. This option creates CJAs with areas as close as possible to the six sheriffdoms without splitting any local authority or existing local authority grouping.

A map showing the proposed boundaries for this option is at Annex C.

Although not as easily as with option 1, six CJAs would be a small enough number to enable them to operate at the level of strategic overview which would be likely to achieve the improvement in communication, integration between criminal justice agencies and consistent delivery of services across Scotland which is necessary. The relatively smaller the size of each authority would mean that internal co-ordination would be easier and a degree of common identity would be retained.

The tables in Annex D indicate the relative populations and workload (measured as the total of probation orders, community service orders, and social enquiry reports) for both options.

Q. In your view, which option would form the better basis for the CJA areas?

1.6 Sheriffdoms

Many respondents to the consultation on reducing reoffending highlighted the central importance of the relationship between criminal justice social work and the sheriff courts. The sheriff courts not only make most of the disposals which lead to some form of community supervision; they also rely on criminal justice social workers to produce a variety of reports to assist with sentencing decisions. The production of such reports for the courts can account for as much as half the workload of criminal justice social workers. It is therefore important that the day-to-day operational relationship between the sheriff courts and local authorities functions well. In most of Scotland, local authority areas fit within sheriffdoms. However, as noted above, in some parts of the West of Scotland, there are boundary differences which make the task of managing these relationships more complicated.

The Report of the Summary Justice Review Committee ( http://www.scotland.gov.uk/library5/justice/sjrcrm-00.asp ) specifically recommends that as far as practicable sheriff court, and sheriffdom, boundaries should be brought into line with local authority boundaries. The realignment of boundaries is a wider issue that goes beyond the scope of this consultation, raising practical issues about court capacity which could only be addressed on a rolling programme over time. Nonetheless Ministers are committed to a long-term aim of addressing these boundary differences through a review. Such a review would obviously have to involve the Scottish Court Service and in due course would require full consultation with all justice system interests.

1.7 The Islands

There are specific issues relevant to the delivery of community justice services in Orkney, Shetland and Eilean Siar, because of the special features of the communities they serve. These include issues related to the size and nature of the communities, the small number of CJSW staff involved in each Island area and the challenge of maintaining Out of Hours provision in services which are too small to support a dedicated team. The new arrangements will have to take account of these factors.

Equally, however, it is important to note that the CJA will be a strategic body - service delivery remains local. The service enhancement agenda and the benefits to authorities of being within a CJA - streamlining of high-level relationships with other agencies, easier structures for joint working and opportunities for sharing experience - will apply to all authorities. The Islands should also be enabled to contribute to and influence the wider strategic thinking on the management of offenders whilst retaining responsibility for local delivery of services.

There remains therefore a question of how best to use these changes to support service improvement in the Islands.

The Executive proposes to use the consultation period to explore these issues in further detail with the Islands authorities.

Q. What do you consider would be necessary to recognise the particular circumstances faced by Orkney, Shetland and Eilean Siar and assist them in the new CJA landscape?

1.8 Other Options considered

A number of alternative proposals for CJA areas have been considered, but rejected. To convert the exisiting 14 CJSW units into CJAs would provide too fragmented a structure with too many of the CJAs too small in size for the nature of the role they would be required to play.

Also considered, but rejected, was the option of basing CJAs round the eight prisons which have a predominantly local function (the other eight prisons primarily serve a national function). This would result in the following:

8 CJAs would deliver some advantages in reducing the number of contact points for purposes of communication and monitoring. However, this option tests badly against the considerations set out at paragraph 1.3 above. Equally critically, prison catchment areas and functions require some flexibility over time, which would make this too unstable a basis for long-term partnership working.

The Executive does not think that either the existing 14 units or 8 prison catchment areas would achieve the improvement in service quality and support for the delivery of a national strategy which is required. Neither would they perform as well against the considerations identified at paragraph 1.3 above in terms of the issues related to easier communication both nationally and internally, local performance management and the local sharing of resources and expertise.

2. CONSTITUTION

2.1 Membership

CJAs will bring together local authorities in a structure in which they can work together to plan services and facilitate liaison with other criminal justice agencies. Their membership will comprise councillors of local authorities lying within the CJA area who will be appointed by their local authority.

The Bill proposes that the CJA members appointed by councils will be serving elected members. In addition the Executive proposes that:

• Members shall hold office until the first meeting of the constituent authority after the next ordinary election of councillors and after each succeeding ordinary election of councillors.
• If they should lose their seat, or are de-barred for any reason from office, members would lose their membership of the CJA.
• Members should be able to send substitutes in case of unavoidable absence from meetings. Substitute members would however have to be elected members of the same council.
• A constituent authority may at any time terminate the membership of any person appointed by them as a member of a CJA.

As is the case with existing joint boards the Executive will not impose any rules about political balance in the membership of a CJA which will be a matter for each council.

2.2 Proportionality of membership

A decision is needed on the number of members who should be appointed by each authority and their voting rights in relationship to their respective size. There are two approaches which could be taken:

• Each authority could be represented by one member whose vote would be weighted in relation to either the population of the authority or the criminal justice social work caseload; or
• Alternatively each authority could have a different number of appointees again based on population or caseload.

This provides four permutations for a system of appointment and weighting of votes.

It is proposed that each authority should be represented by one member whose vote would be weighted in relation to the population of the authority on a scale of 1-4.

A system of one member per council has the advantage of being a more reasonable commitment of elected members' time and of resulting in a less unwieldy membership, better able to work as a strategic group.

Population is proposed as the basis for weighted voting, in line with other arrangements which exist for joint decision-making by councils. Population provides a stable and easily-understood basis, and its use reflects the fact that any council's interest in effective offender management goes beyond the simple volume of cases the council handles. The Executive recognises that the volume of criminal justice social work business undertaken by authorities is not always proportionate to population. However, caseload shares tend to be more volatile than population, and general caseload figures can take no account of the difference between managing, say, a complex sex offender case, and production of a relatively straightforward court report. The Executive therefore does not believe that this would be an appropriate basis for setting voting weights.

The Executive will set initial voting allocations per council in the Order, after further discussion with CoSLA on how a detailed population-based formula should be applied. However if the constituent authorities within a CJA subsequently reach a consensus on an alternative pattern of voting they would prefer for their CJA then this would be approved by the Scottish Ministers. Alternative arrangements will have to be made for Glasgow which will take account of the average number of members in the other CJAs.

Q. Do you agree with these proposals for establishing membership and weighting of voting rights?

2.3 Convener

Each CJA shall appoint a convener and a deputy convener from its membership. The convener or deputy convener shall preside at meetings of the CJA but if both are absent from any meeting the members present shall appoint a convener for that meeting. In the event of an equality of votes at a meeting the convener of that meeting shall have a casting vote as well as a deliberative vote. The Executive will designate the representative of a specific council within the CJA as convener to open the first meeting until the CJA makes its own appointment.

2.4 Proceedings and constitution

CJAs will have power to make or adopt standing orders regulating the procedures and business of the Authority and any sub-committees which may be necessary. It would be expected that the majority of decisions taken by CJAs would be reached through discussion and consensus. From time to time however there may be occasions where members will be required to vote on an issue. We presume simple majority voting should be the norm in such cases. But we recognise that there may be votes taken on some issues (for example regarding matters of constitution) for which there may be a case to require a higher share of the votes in favour or unanimity.

Q. Do you agree that on occasions when a vote is needed to reach a decision, that this ordinarily be decided by a simple majority?

Q. Are there issues on which decisions should require a larger majority and, if so, what are they? e.g.

Constitutional issues, such as appointment of the Convener or adoption of standing orders;

Annual funding allocations of Executive grant;

Decisions to pass to the CJA any functions of individual councils.

2.5 Role of Staff

The Management of Offenders etc. (Scotland) Bill requires that CJAs will employ a chief officer who will be appointed by the CJA to support the day-to-day discharge of its functions and who will be accountable to both the CJA and Ministers for the co-ordination and implementation of the plan and will monitor the delivery of services by local authorities. The CJA will be required to report annually to Ministers on delivery of the plan. Under the Bill the chief officer will have specific personal duties to report to Ministers where a CJA is failing in its functions, or the SPS is failing to co-operate or a local authority is failing to comply with the area plan. The chief officer will be clerk to the CJA (in the same way as Chief Executives are clerks to their councils). Transitional arrangements will be made to cover the period before the first chief officer is appointed. There is no intention that there should be any conflict between the work of the chief officer and that of the Chief Social Work Officers.

Q. You are invited to comment on any practical issues you think may need to be addressed in relation to the appointment of chief officers?

The order to be made under section 2(1) of the Management of Offenders etc. (Scotland) Bill will provide that each CJA may in addition appoint such other staff as may be required for the discharge of its functions.

2.6 Financial implications

The Executive currently provides 100% funding to local authorities for delivery of community justice services under Section 27 of the Social Work Services Act 1967. There will be certain new costs associated with each CJA. The estimated annual cost of a CJA is around £200,000, which it is expected will be sufficient to meet the salary of the chief officer, accommodation, administrative support, other running costs and the costs of the committee structure. This represents an additional cost but there is an expectation that the new structure will achieve efficiency gains in the medium term. CJAs will build in such gains to their financial planning arrangements. The Management of Offenders etc. (Scotland) Bill does not preclude a CJA from accepting funds from other bodies, including individual local authorities. Most of the costs of a CJA will be the same for all CJAs, albeit that CJAs covering larger areas may require slightly larger budgets. It is expected therefore that the more CJAs there are the higher the total budget for CJAs will require to be.

3. PARTNER ORGANISATIONS

3.1 Designation of Partner bodies

The Executive recognises that in addition to CJAs and the SPS other organisations, including the police, the Crown Office and voluntary sector, will be important partners in the planning and delivery of more integrated offender management and in reducing reoffending. This wider set of partners will be entitled to be consulted on the area plan and on annual reports on area performance. Partner organisations will also be expected to be brought within an information-sharing framework within each area.

Section 2(16) of the Management of Offenders etc. (Scotland) Bill defines the term "partner body" as such bodies designated by Ministers as such by Order. A purpose of this is to allow for consultation with stakeholders. It would be helpful therefore to have any comments on which organisations should be designated as partner bodies.

Our initial view is that the organisations which should be designated statutory partner bodies are those public bodies which deal directly with offenders, ex-offenders and victims and those voluntary bodies in receipt of public funds for this purpose. These are:

• Police
• Local health services
• Voluntary Groups in receipt of public funding for working with offenders or victims
• Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS)
• Scottish Court Service (SCS)
• Further Education colleges

Q. Do you agree this list of partner bodies?

Q. Do you agree the definition of voluntary bodies?

Q. Which other agencies do you think should be identified as partner organisations?

It is intended that guidance should be issued from the Executive in respect of partner bodies.

Q. What do you think this guidance in respect of partner bodies should cover?

There are a number of other organisations which obviously have an important role to play in working with CJAs but which cannot or need not be designated as statutory partner bodies. These include Jobcentre Plus which cannot be referred to in the legislation as the functions of this organisation are reserved. There is however a role for the Executive to ensure that there is appropriate involvement of Jobcentre Plus within these new arrangements. In addition, other local authority services e.g. housing and education do not need to be designated as partner bodies as local authorities are already within the framework. In particular housing is of considerable importance and consideration must be given to how best to ensure that housing associations can be effectively involved within the partnerships.

Q. How should housing interests be represented within the partnerships?

The Executive recognises the independence of the judiciary and that it would not be appropriate to include judicial office-holders, such as Sheriffs, in a list of statutory partner bodies. However CJAs would be expected to develop effective relationships within their local areas with sentencers.

Other relevant organisations which are probably not appropriate for inclusion in a statutory list but which will from time to time work with CJAs include:

• Voluntary groups which are not in receipt of public funds may nonetheless have a role to play in working with CJAs
• Fire and rescue authorities
• The Parole Board
• The Risk Management Authority

The relationship between these bodies and CJAs could be covered in guidance which it is intended the Executive should issue in due course.

Q. Are there other bodies which should not be included in a statutory list but which may work with CJAs and should be referred to in any guidance?

The Executive considers however that it would be useful in terms of facilitating communication and effective working arrangements amongst partners that there should be provision for representatives of partner organisations to attend and perhaps contribute to meetings at the CJA's invitation.

Q. Do you agree non-members should be able to attend and speak at the invitation of the CJA?

Q. If so should these non-members be restricted to statutory partners or should the CJA have the discretion to include others?

4. SUMMARY OF QUESTIONS

This document gives everyone with an interest in our criminal justice system and the management of offenders an opportunity to express their views on a number of issues related to the establishment of CJAs.

Section 1 Functions and Structure

There are two options for the CJA structure upon which views are sought. These are four CJAs based on the SCS areas or six CJAs based on sheriffdoms. In addition there are specific issues in respect of the Islands related to the size and nature of the communities they serve and the Executive proposes to use the consultation period to explore these issues in further detail with the Islands authorities.

Q. In your view, which option would form the better basis for the CJA areas? (Para 1.5)

Q. What do you consider would be necessary to recognise the particular circumstances faced by Orkney, Shetland and Eilean Siar and assist them within the CJA framework? (Para 1.7)

Section 3 Constitution

This section details proposals regarding proportionality of membership, proceedings and constitution. It is proposed that each authority should be represented by one serving elected member whose vote would be weighted in relation to the population of the authority on a scale of 1-4. The role of staff is also covered along with information on the expected cost of a CJA.

Q. It is proposed that each authority should be represented by one member whose vote would be weighted in relation to the populaton of the authority on a scale of 1-4. Do you agree with these proposals for establishing membership and weighting of voting rights? (Para 2.2)

Q. Do you agree that on occasions when a vote is needed to reach a decision, that this ordinarily be decided by a simple majority? (Para 2.4)

Q. Are there issues on which decisions should require a larger majority and, if so, what are they? e.g.

Constitutional issues, such as appointment of the Convener or adoption of standing orders;

Annual funding allocations of Executive grant;

Decisions to pass to the CJA any functions of individual councils? (Para 2.4)

Q. You are invited to comment on any practical issues you think may need to be addressed in relation to the appointment of chief officers? (Para 2.5)

Section 3 Partner Organisations

Section 2(16) of the Management of Offenders etc. (Scotland) Bill defines the term 'partner body' as such bodies designated by Ministers as such by Order. Views are therefore sought on who are the important partners in the delivery of more integrated offender management. This section, which refers to paragraph 3.1, lists some bodies and seeks views on which others could be involved and what guidance should be issued in respect of partner bodies.

Q. Do you agree this list of partner bodies?

Q. Do you agree the definition of voluntary bodies?

Q. Which other agencies do you think should be identified as partner organisations?

Q. It is intended that guidance should be issued from the Executive in respect of partner bodies. What do you think this guidance in respect of partner bodies should cover?

Q. How should housing interests be represented within the partnerships?

Q. Are there other bodies which should not be included in a statutory list but which may work with CJAs and should be referred to in any guidance?

Q. Do you agree non-members should be able to attend and speak at the invitation of the CJA?

Q. If so, should these non-members be restricted to statutory partners or should they include others?

5. CONSULTATION PROCESS AND TIMING

5.1 The consultation lasts for a period of 12 weeks closing on 23 June 2005.

5.2 This consultation document and an electronic response form are available on the Scottish Executive website: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/consultations . The site also provides the facility of online discussion of the issues involved.

5.3 Comments, questions, and requests for further information may be sent to cjaconsultation@scotland.gsi.gov.uk or to:

CJA Consultation Team
Room GW.15
St. Andrew's House
Regent Road
EDINBURGH
EH1 3DG

5.4 Useful References:

5.4.1 Consultation Re:duce Re:habilitate Re:form
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/consultations/justice/rrrc-00.asp

5.4.2 Analysis of Consultation Responses:
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/consultations/justice/rrrar-00.asp

Executive Summary:
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/consultations/justice/rrres-00.asp

Analysis of Focus Groups:
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/consultations/justice/rrrafg-00.asp

In-street Interviews and Public Discussions:
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/consultations/justice/rrrisi-00.asp

5.4.3 Criminal Justice Plan (particularly Chapter 5)
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/library5/justice/scjp-00.asp

5.4.4 Scottish Prison Service Framework Document 2005
http://www.sps.gov.uk/keydocs/framework/default.asp

5.4.5 The Summary Justice Review Committee Report (McInnes)
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/library5/justice/sjrcrm-00.asp

5.4.6 The Management of Offenders etc. (Scotland) Bill
http://www.scotland.parliament.uk/business/bills/billsinprogress/offenders.htm

« Previous | Contents | Next »