HOME Office Ministers have finally offered an explanation for the extraordinary decision to give the same answer to 285 written Parliamentary questions.

At the end of last year, Peter Luff lodged a complaint in the chamber of the Commons after Ministers responded to a series of probing inquiries with: "I will write to my Honourable Friend/Member and place a copy of my letter in the Library."

Leader of the Commons, Peter Hain, agreed this was unacceptable.

He pointed out this was a slightly underhand way of withholding information, as it ensures potentially embarrassing replies are not printed in the official Parliamentary record Hansard.

But Home Office Minister, Fiona Mactaggart, has now written to Peter with a full "explanation".

It says: "I assure you that the policy is in no way an attempt to deny 'those outside the House the results of effective scrutiny by the legislature'."

According to Ms Mactaggart, the idea is to ensure all MPs have a reply of sorts by the end of each Parliamentary session.

She then adds, without a hint of irony: "The Home Office receives approximately 7,000 Parliamentary questions per session and gives a high priority to responding to them on time and in the appropriate manner.

"The policy of sending holding replies ahead of prorogation (the start of MPs' holidays) is a good one and will continue."

Indeed. Who could possibly fault such commitment to open Government?

Hint of a suggestion?

WHATEVER could Bill Wiggin have meant when he said to Tony Blair at Prime Minister's Questions: "A person who calls for the Chancellor to be sacked and whose economic politics do not stand up has a total disregard for sensible, mature politics."

"That is what the Prime Minister said about Ken Livingstone four years ago, when he used to denounce people who called for the Chancellor to be sacked.

"Why has he chosen to support them now?"

Surely he wasn't suggesting Mr Blair would be glad to see the back of Gordon Brown?