Thank you for your letter dated 14 May. In your letter you express concern on behalf of the Committee that the budgetary arrangements for HM Chief Inspector of Prisons (HMCIP) and the Prisons and Probation Ombudsman (PPO) have the potential to endanger their independence and could lead to a breach of the United Kingdom's obligations under the Optional Protocol to the United Nations Convention Against Torture ("the Protocol").

We were the third country in the world to ratify the Protocol. Since ratification in December 2003, we have been active in encouraging other States to sign and ratify the Protocol. We see implementation of the Protocol, including the establishment of the UK National Preventive Mechanism (NPM), and worldwide promotion of the Protocol as an important part of our Anti-torture initiative for the worldwide eradication of torture, which we launched in October 1998.

Preparatory to the establishment of the UK NPM, officials in the Ministry of Justice have been holding discussions with representatives of the various inspection bodies operating in the UK and with representatives of civil society who have an interest in the Protocol. Positive progress has been made, and we hope to announce the composition of the NPM to Parliament by the end of June.

Article 18 of the Protocol requires that "States Parties shall guarantee the functional independence of the national preventative mechanism as well as the independence of their personnel" and "States Parties shall give due consideration to the Principles relating to the status of national institutions for the promotion and protection of human rights." Section B2 of the Paris Principles provides that "The national institution shall have an infrastructure which is suited to the smooth conduct of its activities, in particular, adequate funding. The purpose of this funding should be to enable it to have its own staff and premises, in order to be independent of the Government and not be subject to financial control which might affect its independence".

We consider that the current budgetary arrangements for HMCIP and the PPO do not conflict with the above. The government, Parliament and public servants including HMCIP and the PPO have a responsibility for the proper use of tax-payers money. This is achieved through the use of proper financial control in accordance with Parliamentary and Treasury procedure and these arrangements do not restrain the fundamental independence of HMCIP or the PPO.

I must be very clear that there has been no attempt by the Chief Executive of NOMS, Director General of HM Prison Service, or Director of Probation to use financial procedures to limit in any way the independence of HMCIP or the PPO.

The Director General of HM Prison Service and the Director of Probation are not responsible for setting the budgets of either of these bodies. The Chief Executive does take advice from the NOMS Board, which includes the Director General of HM Prison Service and Director of Probation, but it is the Chief Executive who allocates funds to HMCIP and the PPO, and this is properly done on behalf of the Secretary of State. It is also worth repeating that there has been no real change to the budget setting process for these bodies with the introduction of NOMS, and there has long been an entirely appropriate need to consider the budgets of these bodies in the context of wider prison and probation spending.

It is also the case that adequate funding has, and will, continue to be made available to HMCIP and the PPO in order for them to perform their functions. The independence of HMCIP and the PPO in carrying out their duties is further protected by their freedom to determine the use to which funding is put, which is a key requirement of section B2 of the Paris Principles as described above. Furthermore, HMCIP and the PPO are able to publicise their findings through their annual and other published reports.

The independence of HMCIP is also safeguarded by having a remit that is defined in statue under Section 5A of the Prison Act 1952. The PPO is currently an administrative appointment but, as you will be aware, our intention is to legislate to put this office on a statutory footing at the next appropriate opportunity. We are aiming to find a suitable Bill in this session or next.

Both HMCIP and the PPO enjoy a well founded reputation for providing robust and wholly effective scrutiny and I do not agree that there has been any undermining of the functional independence of these bodies or the appearance thereof.