Bill Morris: Mr Blunkett, now trust me: you are wrong on asylum

Preaching integration but practising segregation is no way forward. Take a principled stand

The failure of the Government to explain its asylum policy and to manage dispersal effectively means that we now stand on the threshold of a fatal breakdown in this country's honourable asylum tradition. This crisis of understanding does our nation no service.

Today, the new Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill returns to the House of Commons offering Members of Parliament the chance to debate what is now the fourth asylum Bill in 10 years. My fear is that, unless the Government starts to inject some real compassion and common sense into this debate, it will not be their last discussion of this topic.

The golden rule for policy development must be that it is approached from a position of principle. Instead of reaching for the pejorative with terms such as "overwhelmed", ministers must accept that they can never develop an asylum policy to satisfy the far right. Adopting their language only heightens fear and apprehension. Better, then, to take a principled stand based on the existing international conventions, which remain true to this nation's values of humanity and justice.

The latest plans to force many asylum applicants to submit their appeal from a third, usually hostile, country demonstrates what happens when a government strays too far from its path of principle. Other countries' objections to these moves could prove their undoing, but it is extremely worrying that the Government has seen fit to attack the fundamental right to asylum in such a crude way.

Why, at a time when Europe is enjoying the greatest wealth it has ever known and when its population is shrinking to levels that could undermine this position of economic wellbeing, are we erecting ever greater barriers to sharing this prosperity with those born outside our borders?

A nation such as ours, which has grown rich on its global ventures, must stand ready to accept its responsibilities. The truth is that for generations developed countries have plundered and pillaged under-developed economies of their resources, leaving unemployment and poverty behind them. Little wonder then, that the people of these countries turn up on our doorstep wanting a share of the growing prosperity, generated with their raw materials.

We cannot say: "Go away, we are full up." Instead, Britain must now take a leadership role in Europe and start arguing the case for managed migration on the basis of burden-sharing. Note that the Confederation of British Industry is championing the cause of immigration, arguing that migrants, far from being a drain on the country, actually contribute many billions of pounds to the United Kingdom's economy.

We welcome the Government's tougher custodial sentences on the vile trafficking trade and its opening-up of legitimate channels of entry for migrants. But it is wholly contradictory to articulate a policy of inclusion, extolling the virtues of assimilation and citizenship, yet to put asylum-seekers into detention camps. They will not learn the language and culture of their new homeland by talking to other asylum-seekers.

Similarly, championing social inclusion yet denying asylum-seeking children access to local nurseries and schools is both morally and intellectually confusing. The Government claims that asylum-seekers in the community are creating resource problems; that they are "swamping" schools and doctors' surgeries. So it defies logic to pursue a policy of camps that will require even greater resources and cost many times more than arguing the case for investment in and better management of dispersal.

The real problem is that asylum is now seen not as a justice and humanitarian issue but as a law-and-order matter. The question has to be asked: is the Home Office the right department to handle asylum? Is the pursuit of law and order, and the preservation of homeland security, the ethos required to manage an issue of such international complexity?

Asylum policy cannot be viewed through the narrow lens of domestic political concerns. Surely it is now time to free the Government from this political tension? Serious consideration must be given to establishing an independent commission with responsibility for asylum matters. It works for Canada.

Last autumn, at the Labour Party conference in Brighton, the Home Secretary, David Blunkett, said "trust me", indicating that he would deliver an honourable asylum policy. I have been holding him to that promise ever since and was heartened when he scrapped the heinous voucher scheme and the misery that it brought. But David, listen to a friend – there is more to be done. Preaching integration whilst practising segregation is no way forward.

In the meantime, our MPs have a job to do, although asylum-seekers will not be holding their breath over talk of a backbench revolt. The payroll vote and the burning ambition of many who sit on those Labour benches will ensure that once again it will fall to the much-maligned House of Lords to defend our liberties and to preserve British justice.

info@tgwu.org.uk

The writer is leader of the Transport and General Workers Union