Response from Mr Mark Oaten MP
I would like to draw to the attention of the
procedure committee a few examples of bad WPQ responses. While
I have received a number of responses I have not been happy with
the below are the clearest examples of when answers have not been
provided in a satisfactory manner and have involved further, and
in my view, unnecessary questions and/or FOI requests.
1) The first, laid out below, does not seem
to answer the question put in my view.
Mr. Oaten: To ask the Secretary of State for
Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he has received reports
of who fired first in recent skirmishes between forces of Democratic
Republic of Congo and Rwanda across their mutual border. [240656]
Bill Rammell [holding answer 8 December
2008]: The military situation in eastern Democratic Republic
of Congo (DRC) is comparatively calm for the time being. Fighting
between the National Congress for People Defense (CNDP) and DRC
government forces was last reported on 17 November, when
the two sides clashed around the town of Rwindi in North Kivu
province. Since then, the rebel leader Laurent Nkunda has fulfilled
commitments to withdraw from positions captured in recent fighting.
However, skirmishes have taken place between the CNDP and other
militia groups more recently.
We continue to follow events in eastern DRC
closely, and urge all parties to return to processes to achieve
a political solution to the issues underlying the violence.
2) The responses to the series of questions
below in my view have led to totally unnecessary further questions
and now has led me to place an FOI request. The Howard league
for Penal reform published a report into their "Barbed"
project which confirmed that income tax paid by prisoners had
been returned to them and I was asking these questions in parliament
to confirm that. Therefore I think the answers given are totally
unsatisfactory. The "pursuant to" question of 21 October
was particularly disappointing. I believe that because it was
a "pursuant to" PQ the Minister knew I was referring
to the paying back of income tax to prisoners. Moreover the answer
of 21 October is absolutely at odds with the answer on 25 Nov.
To date a simple answer that the money was indeed paid back has
not been provided.
INCOME TAX:
PRISONERS: 6 OCT
2008
Mr. Oaten: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer
on how many occasions income tax has been repaid to people in
custody in the last three years. [224310]
Mr. Timms: The information requested is not
available.
INCOME TAX:
PRISONERS: 21 OCT
2008
Mr. Oaten: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer
pursuant to the answer of 6 October 2008, Official Report,
column 376W, on income tax: prisoners, what his policy is on the
payment of income tax by prisoners. [228971]
Mr. Timms: Like other individuals, prisoners
pay income tax in accordance with the law.
INCOME TAX:
PRISONERS: 17 NOV
2008
Mr. Oaten: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer
pursuant to the answer of 21 October 2008, Official Report,
column 338W, on income tax: prisoners, whether income tax paid
by prisoners working on the Barbed project in Coldingley prison
was returned to them. [236415]
Mr. Timms: As for other individuals, the personal
tax affairs of prisoners are covered by rules of confidentiality.
COLDINGLEY PRISON:
EMPLOYMENT: 25 NOV
2008
Mr. Oaten: To ask the Secretary of State for
Justice what arrangements HM Prison Service staff make for the
payment of tax and national insurance of prisoners participating
in the Barbed project at HM Prison Coldingley. [239455]
Mr. Hanson: The Barbed project at Coldingley
has now ended. But as a matter of general principle prisoners
working inside prisons are at all times under prison rules and
cannot be treated as employees. Therefore there is no requirement
for Prison Service staff to arrange for tax and national insurance
to be deducted.
December 2008
| 
