By Tim Murgatroyd

Is it just me who wonders whether the UK is punching way, way below its weight when it comes to helping lone child refugees? I seriously ask myself whether we couldn’t squeeze a few more into our own fair city of York.

First off, some context. Remember David Cameron? Ah, how fragile are the mighty in the end. You might even wonder why we give them so much power over our lives . . . But I digress.

Back in May last year our then Prime Minister announced with some fanfare that the UK would accept an unspecified number of lone child refugees. He was responding to public outcry that tens of thousands such children were adrift in the continent of Europe, potential prey to exploitation and abuse.

Thank goodness for that, millions of Britons told themselves. Remember, our country has a proud record of helping child refugees from Nazi Germany through the famous Kindertransports.

The assumption by campaigners was that at least 3,000 would be swiftly accommodated here, spread out across our 600 or so local authorities. A far greater cause for national pride, in my humble view, than gold medals at an Olympics or even winning Eurovision – if Brexiters still allow us to enter.

Actions, as everyone knows, speak louder than words.

Besides, many of us believe that British foreign policy in Iraq and Libya actually contributed to the destabilising of the Middle East and increased the flow of refugees.

York Press:

Long way from home: A Syrian refugee child plays with a ball in a settlement camp in Koura, Lebanon.  Photo: Jane Barlow/PA Wire

Selling British-made arms to war-bent states with big enough bank accounts isn’t a sensible road to world peace either.

After all, war and crises of many kinds, not least environmental, are driving people to flee all they know and care for, their communities and homes, risking their own and their family’s lives, just to find a place of safety.

How easy it is for us in York to take our personal security for granted.

Recently, for example, I heard a racket of military jets over the city and stepped outside. High up, warplanes from the RAF were clearly practising some kind of attack on an urban site.

The air filled with the rasping, hoarse roar of engines. The planes circled then sped off, presumably having simulated depositing their payload and fleeing before any retaliation could come their way. All sound military tactics.

Being an imaginative sort (I am a novelist, after all), I found myself picturing the scene if those war jets hadn’t been RAF.

What would happen if they had dropped barrel bombs, napalm, or any of the other hideous aerial weapons mankind has designed to mangle one another?

I imagined the ancient wooden-framed houses around the Minster burning, smoke billowing into the air. And if those air attacks were followed by ruthless enemies on land, wouldn’t I want to flee to a place of safety, a place with a tradition of civil society and the rule of law like . . . Oh yes, York?

Which brings me back to David Cameron’s pledge to accept a large number of lone child refugees into our country. Indeed, to show the world that we in the UK are genuinely compassionate.

Because I’m sad to say neither of those things are happening.

It turns out from official government figures that only 200 lone child refugees have been accepted so far. Robert Goodwill, the immigration minister, has told MPs only one further group of 150 lone child refugees are to be brought to Britain and they will be the last to be transferred under the scheme.

Am I the only one who thinks that we can afford to do far, far better than that?

I know City of York Council is cash-strapped by Government austerity targets.

But if the wealthy in this country paid their fair share of taxes I’m sure we could find the means to support vulnerable child refugees.

Is it just me who would welcome such young people to our city as an asset for the future, not a burden?

If Britain wants to be great, we need greatness of soul and heart, not a shameful meanness of spirit.