IF the fat was not already in the fire in the refugee debate, in which accusations of racism have already been hurled, then it seems sure to be tonight as Tory leader William Hague calls for all new asylum-seekers to be held in detention centres.

Clearly, Mr Hague is undaunted by charges that his party is playing the race card.

And it is evident that, with votes to be won in the local elections in a couple of weeks, the Conservatives are playing on people's concerns about the costs of accommodating asylum-seekers as the government disperses them around the country.

Certainly, Mr Hague is tapping a deep well of discontent since Labour's own research reveals that public concern over asylum-seekers is now only overshadowed by the health service and education -- a state of affairs that prompted the government to replace applicants' cash benefits with food vouchers. But while, to many, it may be refreshing that a political leader is not prepared to be restrained by the forces of political correctness -- such as those which have driven ministers to drop the expression "bogus" in relation to asylum-seekers -- there is much voters may overlook as Mr Hague seeks to charm them with his ideas of dealing with the problem.

For while it is the case that tens of thousands of asylum-seekers have simply vanished into the population without having had their applications approved, there is much of shutting-the-stable-door-after-the-horse- has-bolted about the Tory plan to house new applicants in secure centres while their requests are subjected to 'fast-track' processing in just six weeks.

After all, the situation about which Mr Hague complains was manifest while the Conservatives were in power and displayed none of the strictness that today they suggest Labour lacks.

Equally, while targeting the asylum-seekers who are deemed to be more interested in the benefits available in 'soft touch' Britain than genuinely escaping oppression, the Tory scheme -- which, indeed, many would consider firm, but fair -- is based on the foundation that economic migration is essentially bad.

But this disregards the fact that has long been a keystone of British society, with newcomers adding as much to the country's prosperity as they have benefited from it -- as many voters are aware from their own ancestry and experience. The asylum-seeker issue may have thrown up many valid concerns and heated debate, but is the force that drives it -- that of seeking a better life -- really a negative one?