Like most other people, I haven't a clue whether or not William Hague (above) made his speech proposing detention camps for asylum seekers for cynical party-political purposes or because he genuinely believes in the rightness of the policy.

There's nothing wrong with being sceptical about the motives of politicians. By and large, they seem to do or say little without an eye to the pursuit of power.

But never mind why he said it. It's enough that he did, putting forward a policy which is fairly close to thoughts expressed in this column months ago and subsequently challenged in letters from kinder souls than I who sincerely feel it to be the duty of relatively-rich Britain to provide an open house for anyone who wants to come here from harder-up countries. I'm afraid that, equally sincerely, I can't agree with them

It has never made any sort of sense to me to have a long-winded asylum system which enables people so easily to melt into the general population long before their claim is investigated or any subsequent appeal is heard.

Nor does it seem wise to allow such easy access to a bountiful benefits system - a major factor, surely, in the decision of many of those who claim asylum to trail all the way across Europe through various "safe" countries and negotiate the English Channel before doing so.

So what's wrong with accommodating them in detention centres where they will have a roof over their heads and be fed and clothed while their claim is investigated by a system which has had enough resources put into it to enable the job to be accomplished within six weeks?

For those who really are fleeing from persecution in their own countries, a centre like that will surely be regarded as a safe haven where they can live free of fear until their claim is proven, after which they will be given every help to integrate into the community.

The others, the ones who come here not because they're in fear of their lives but because they've heard that Britain is a soft touch and will provide them with a home and money, might not much care for it, of course. Once their claim was rejected, they'd be on hand to be returned to wherever they came from instead of being able to evade the authorities and stay here.

Which is why I find it hard to accept the suggestions from opponents of the Hague policy that 18 centres will be needed at a cost of £900 million in the first year, and if there are hold-ups in the system 50 camps could be needed at a cost of £2 billion.

That assumes that people would continue to arrive in this country in the numbers they have been doing. That surely is a false assumption.

There are obviously good lines of communication back to the home countries of the asylum claimants. Once the word spreads that Britain was no longer the comfortable option that it used to be for those pretending to be something they're not, then the flow of those now known as "economic migrants" would dwindle.

That would not only reduce the pressure on the system, eliminating the need for anything like as many camps as some people are suggesting, but it would also enable the real asylum seekers to have their case dealt with more speedily so they can get on with building a new life.

The only losers would be those who come here not because they're persecuted but because they're relatively poor.

Converted for the new archive on 30 June 2000. Some images and formatting may have been lost in the conversion.