Leader: Prolonged, stormy race ahead

In the bad old days of the Soviet Communist Party, the transcribers of the interminable speeches made by the general secretary to the faithful used to amuse themselves by inserting audience reactions at regular intervals. Conventions dictated three levels of response: applause, stormy applause and prolonged stormy applause.

Had such a transcription been made of Michael Howard's address to a rather different conference this autumn, it would have noted the listeners' reactions to the Home Secretary's condemnation of racism as "applause". But his determination to crack down on illegal immigration? That rated "prolonged stormy applause". This, then, is the Conservative Party: a bit tough on racism, but far tougher on what it claims is the cause of racism - immigration itself.

It now seems inevitable that the Tories intend to make the question of immigration an election issue. For months now, "sources" from within the Government have been engaged in a most unusual exercise - briefing selected newspapers that a policy is not working. Month after month, stories have appeared drawing attention to the heightened cost and growing numbers of political asylum seekers, to the backlog of appeal cases, to the ineffectiveness of policing procedures. Each time these have been accompanied by hints as to what might appear in a new immigration Bill to be outlined in the Queen's Speech this autumn. Benefits will be cut for those on appeal against Home Office decisions, benefits will reduced on entry, there will be no oral appeals, there will be an "audit of tyranny" establishing places where there is nothing to flee from - and so on. Howard the Scourge of Criminals now turns his avenging gaze on the immigration cheats.

How bad have things become? Apparently, the numbers of those seeking political asylum in Britain have climbed substantially this year. At the same time, the numbers of those seeking asylum in other European Union countries have dropped. QED: for once, those softies on the Continent have got it right while we - kind, liberal Britons - are a soft touch. The trend must be reversed, right?

Actually, the numbers are increasing from a low of just over 22,000 in 1993. Last year they had risen to 32,000. The current level might give a figure for 1995 of about 38,000 - all compared with a peak of 45,000 in 1990. In Germany the figures have indeed fallen - but to an annual rate of 130,000. In the Netherlands it was 52,000 in a country with less than a third of our population. So the tough Europeans are still processing many more would-be refugees than we are.

The estimated cost of welfare benefits to asylum seekers is pounds 150m per year. But only a small proportion of this would be recouped by replacing such benefits with an "asylum-seekers' allowance". And there is no evidence whatsoever that such a cut would do anything to reduce the flow of those seeking asylum.

If the numbers are not great and the potential savings not enormous, why such investment of political capital in this area by the governing party? Because, as Mr Howard said last week, "my determination to improve race relations by firm immigration controls is at the centre of our approach". In other words, if people believed immigration was rising too fast, then racial tension might rise.

How odd that the Government seems so assiduously to have fostered exactly this perception. But then, Mr Howard has always had an ear for stormy, prolonged applause.