Stop talking tough about asylum seekers, Mr Blair, and tell the truth

The idea of a Fortress Britain has become all the rage again. Twenty years ago Tony Benn and his followers were briefly fashionable on the left for proposing import controls in order to protect British producers. They never managed to attract wide support. With good cause, Mr Benn was told by newspapers, the Conservatives and parts of his own party that he was not living in the real world. In a global economy, Britain could not hide away. It could not become a fortress.

But now it seems that Mr Benn was ahead of his times, only it is people rather than goods that are to be kept out of the country. The global economy celebrates freedom, but not under any circumstances. Goods and capital can move where they like, but people must stay where they are.

The Conservative leader, Iain Duncan Smith, has become the most ardent advocate of Fortress Britain, stating that no one from the Sangatte camp in France should be allowed into Britain. That is erecting quite a fortress. Mr Benn was far more selective in his proposed import controls.

With creditable speed, ministers were scornful of Mr Duncan Smith's siege-like mentality. But they are also playing the game of "let's build a fortress" or, more accurately, "let's appear to be building a fortress". The Government announces an initiative a day in an attempt to show that, when it comes to keeping people out of Britain, they will take some beating. A leaked Downing Street memo almost literally declares war on asylum-seekers by proposing that British warships should head for the Mediterranean to intercept vessels carrying illegal immigrants. The memo proceeds to suggest that the RAF should be on alert to remove asylum-seekers from the fortress in "bulk". The memo's long list of increasingly desperate proposals range from the unworkable to the counter-productive: withdraw aid from uncooperative countries, refuse to take any asylum-seekers from other countries. Help! The increasing urgency of the memo serves only to give the impression that we are being swamped, overwhelmingly swamped.

Sadly, the outbreak of hysteria closes a small gap that opened after 11 September. For a few weeks it seemed possible that a more rational and sensible debate on asylum was about to take place. Recognising the nightmare of life under the Taliban regime, even the Conservatives started to take a softer line. In an interview with me on GMTV's Sunday programme last autumn, the shadow International Development Secretary, Caroline Spelman, declared with a flourish that her party's policy on asylum had changed. The plight of people trying to flee Afghanistan illustrated the need for a more receptive approach. I asked whether this meant that her party's message was that there should be more refugees rather than fewer. She replied: "We've always realised that we need to provide a safe haven for refugees. What we realise is that we need to go further than any refugee policy in the past. We have listened and understood that our policies were interpreted as being harsh before the last election." Mr Duncan Smith's recent comments signal a U-turn away from Ms Spelman's pragmatism. Evidently he has reached the conclusion that Mr Hague was not harsh enough. On this issue he is Mr Hague without the jokes.

The fleetingly tolerant reaction to fleeing Afghans after 11 September was revealing. When the focus is on the tyrannical regime from which they are fleeing, there is a more rational exchange of views. When attention is almost exclusively on the pressures facing the countries they are fleeing towards, political leaders begin to act wildly.

Their wild behaviour is partly led by the media. The Labour MP for Dover, Gwyn Prosser, tells me that it is the perception of his constituency being flooded by immigrants that has become so hard to control. He complains that some newspapers repeatedly publish library pictures of asylum-seekers clinging to Channel Tunnel trains. They create an impression that hundreds are arriving in such a dramatic form each day. His weekly surgeries are flooded by constituents who have been alarmed by these pictures rather than the true picture, which is that very few asylum-seekers have managed to make it into Britain in this way.

Characteristically, the Government has responded by wanting to be seen to be acting, as much as acting. The obsession about being seen to act has reached a new literal level with news from the Home Office that TV cameras will be allowed to film asylum-seekers being deported. This news was leaked to a newspaper last Friday. Each day there is a leaked memo here, an initiative there. Probably most of the announcements will never be implemented. I am told, for example, that the Treasury is already raising questions about the announcement two weeks ago that three institutions for asylum-seekers were to be built in the middle of the English countryside. The cost of funding, staffing and maintaining these institutions will be enormous, irrespective of the unfortunate symbolism conveyed by their rural isolation. It is quite possible they will never be built.

There is a significant difference between the easy populism of Mr Duncan Smith and the Government's latest bout of initiatives. Given that the crisis has been exaggerated in the media, ministers have an understandable urge to counter the perception that nothing is being done. Because of the rise of the right in parts of Europe and some small successes for the BNP here, Tony Blair seeks to show that mainstream parties can address concerns relating to asylum-seekers. But the more the Government tries to dominate the media with initiatives that may or may not become policies, the more it adds to the air of hysteria. The more it attempts to show the right that it means business on this issue, the more the right senses blood. Last Friday the Daily Mail sang the praises of Mr Duncan Smith and condemned the Government for making empty gestures in tackling asylum. The one way the Government should not respond to such provocation is to make more empty gestures.

There is another option, which is to attempt to explain what is really happening. The number of asylum-seekers entering the EU has halved over the past decade. Those that manage to make it into Britain carry out the worst-paid and least-fulfilling jobs. There are immense pressures in parts of the country where public services are ill-equipped to serve the indigenous population, let alone newcomers.

Tackling these pressures requires resources, sensitivity, patience and Europe-wide co-ordination. There are no easy headlines in this story. Unfortunately, the story has become one about easy headlines.