THERE is an (unofficial) art to the way civil servants - on behalf of their Ministers - answer written Parliamentary questions.

In some cases, they give as much information as possible.

A "friendly" Labour MP asks what the Government is doing to tackle a specific problem, and the answer waxes lyrical about a wealth of initiatives and policy moves.

Other answers, however, appear to be as vague as possible.

Critics say this is because a fuller response would only give ammunition to a hostile, opposition MP.

This issue was thrown into the spotlight recently by a leaked guidance document drawn up by - and for - the civil service.

Civil servants are said to have been told to determine whether MPs were "friendly" ahead of replying to questions.

They were also asked to let Ministers know if there has been media interest in any issue raised by questions.

The document provoked a brief political storm as the Government was accused of politicising the civil service.

And Ministers, keen to prove they have given up spin for good, said the guidance would be revised and all questions would be treated the same and answered in the simplest possible way.

This news, however, has clearly not yet filtered down to the Home Office.

This week it was faced with the following question from Peter Luff: "How many representations has the Home Secretary received supporting the establishment of an asylum accommodation centre at Throckmorton?"

The answer should have been a simple number. Ten? Fifty? A hundred, even?

But the response, attributed to asylum Minister Bev Hughes, was instead long, disingenuous and designed to avoid bad headlines.

She said: "A planning notification has not yet been submitted in respect of the proposed accommodation centre at Throckmorton. The consultation period of the planning process has therefore not begun."

What the civil servant ought to have said is: "Not a single person has supported the idea of putting a centre at Throckmorton. Not one.

"But we hope that - if the planning process drags on a bit - we might just be lucky enough to get one or two. Fingers crossed."

That, however, wouldn't have sounded quite so positive. It really is the way they tell 'em.