Specific parts of Britain ARE being swamped by migrants, David Blunkett insists today.

Writing in the Daily Mail, the former Labour Home Secretary backs claims made by Defence Secretary Michael Fallon.

Mr Blunkett says politicians cannot simply avoid the issue and Mr Fallon was right to ‘voice the concerns of ordinary voters’.

He warns of increasing public fears about immigration and says those who claim a large influx of migrants does not create problems are living in a ‘fantasy land’.

Scroll down for video

Former Home Secretary David Blunkett (left) has defended the comments of Defence Secretary Michael Fallon (right) who earlier said parts of the UK were 'swamped' with migrants

Instead of ‘peddling illusions’ around the impact of immigration, politicians must find solutions, he writes.

Mr Fallon had said at the weekend that some areas felt ‘under siege’ and that action was needed ‘to prevent whole towns and communities being swamped by huge numbers of migrant workers’.

Following a rebuke from Downing Street, he backtracked on his comments yesterday, saying he ‘mis-spoke’.

But Mr Blunkett said there had been no need for an apology, merely a clarification of what he meant.

However, the Archbishop of Canterbury issued an apparent criticism of Mr Fallon, saying he was worried about the language being used in the immigration debate.

The Most Rev Justin Welby claimed local priests were reporting an upsurge in racist abuse and said immigration should not be treated as a ‘deep menace’ that is going to overwhelm the country.

In the House of Commons, David Cameron told MPs Mr Fallon was right to ‘correct’ what he had said.

David Cameron told MPs Mr Fallon was right to 'correct' what he had said while the Most Rev Justin Welby warned immigration should not be treated as a 'deep menace' that is going to overwhelm the country

Mr Blunkett said any attempts to make immigration a taboo subject 'plays into Ukip's hands'

But Mr Blunkett, who himself faced criticism when used the word ‘swamped’ to describe the impact of asylum seekers more than a decade ago, writes in the Mail: ‘Just because immigration is deeply controversial, that cannot mean that we should avoid talking about it.’

He says there are constant complaints that politicians are out of touch and refuse to listen to voters, adding: ‘What we need from all politicians is honesty and openness, not a desire for political point-scoring or displays of self-righteous importance.’

Attempts to make immigration a taboo subject ‘plays into Ukip’s hands’, he warns.

Mr Blunkett sets out plans for radical reforms on immigration – going much farther than Labour and Ed Miliband in his calls for change.

New arrivals who have not found work should return home, and only be able to claim benefits and access services if they have first paid into the system, he says.

Tory backbenchers also rallied behind Mr Fallon. Stewart Jackson wrote on Twitter that Mr Fallon was ‘absolutely right to use the word “swamped” about “some” immigration hotspots despite what teenage spin doctors at No 10 might say’.

DAVID BLUNKETT: Yes, specific parts of Britain ARE being 'swamped' by migrants - and we politicians must dare to tell the truth

The former Home Secretary believes he and Mr Fallon were right to speak out about immigration

As concern over immigration mounts, public debate on the subject becomes ever more sensitive and controversial. Passions are inflamed, positions entrenched, tensions are palpable.

So whenever politicians speak out on this issue, they are treading in a minefield.

That is certainly what the Defence Secretary Michael Fallon found when he said in a television interview over the weekend that some towns in the East of England now feel ‘swamped’ and ‘under siege’ because of continuing high levels of immigration.

Inevitably, his remarks provoked a political outcry.

His Coalition colleague Ed Davey from the Liberal Democrats declared that all of us ‘need to be responsible in the words we use’ about immigration, while Labour front-bencher Douglas Alexander said that Fallon’s statement showed ‘the desperation of the Conservative Party’ in trying to appeal to disillusioned voters now turning to the UK Independence Party.

All of this may well be true, but it does not address fundamental worries.

So explosive was the row that Fallon was even pressurised by Downing Street into issuing a retraction.

This storm echoed the experience I went through 12 years ago when I, too, used the word ‘swamped’ to describe the anxious feelings of people who were facing the dispersal of large numbers of asylum seekers into their own hard-pressed Northern communities.

Such fears were being fuelled at the time by the tremendous strain put on vital public services such as GPs’ practices, local schools and social housing.

Just as today, my use of the word ‘swamped’ caused a bitter controversy. In contrast to Michael Fallon’s case, I was not told by Downing Street to use different words — but the then PM Tony Blair’s office did distance itself from my language.

Moreover, I was subjected to a barrage of criticism from right across the political spectrum.

In one vivid, if highly unfair attack, the Hackney MP Diane Abbott said my use of the word ‘swamped’ was ‘unfortunate’, adding that ‘we are talking about children here, not raw sewage’.

From the other side, the senior Tory Oliver Letwin donned the mantle of moral superiority to warn that ‘there is a terrible danger here of slipping into language that is emotive’.

Yet for all such condemnation, I believe that both Michael Fallon and I were right to speak out on this issue and to voice the concerns of ordinary voters.

Just because immigration is deeply controversial, that cannot mean that we should avoid talking about it.

There are constant complaints today that politicians are ‘out of touch’, that they refuse to listen to the electorate.

'Unlike Mr Fallon, I was not told by Downing Street to use different words - but the then PM Tony Blair's office did distance itself from my language'

There has been, mistakenly in my view, a perception that mainstream politicians have engaged in a conspiracy of silence on the immigration issue.

Whatever my critics argued in 2002, I was not being remotely prejudiced or incendiary in highlighting some of the problems in Northern constituencies in the face of far-reaching social change.

Nor do I believe such a charge could be levelled against Michael Fallon, albeit that we are talking about very small, specific areas and communities — not large swathes of our country.

In facing up to the problems of particular neighbourhoods where a large number of new arrivals from overseas not only puts severe pressure on the civic infrastructure, but also challenges the ability of the local community to absorb newcomers — who often have different languages, social skills and cultures — we avoid living in a fantasy land where none of these difficulties exist.

As politicians, we have a duty to address them. Our task is to find solutions, not peddle illusions.

It is interesting that in both cases, our critics focused largely on the language we used — not on the points we made.

If we had deployed the word ‘overwhelmed’, which, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, means almost exactly the same as swamped, it is unlikely that there would have been so many protests.

That is because the term ‘swamped’ is so loaded with political history.

It was famously uttered by Margaret Thatcher in a World In Action television interview in 1978, when she was still Leader of the Opposition.

It was uttered by Margaret Thatcher as Leader of the Opposition in the late Seventies when there was deep anxiety about rising immigration

In the late Seventies, there was deep anxiety about rising immigration, which, in turn, fed on a widespread anger over economic paralysis, falling living standards and a fraying social fabric. This does sound depressingly familiar!

Words are important, but so is political courage. What we need from all politicians is honesty and openness, not a desire for political point- scoring or displays of self- righteous importance.

That’s why I was so angered by the audacious piece of hypocrisy from the Ukip leadership. Claiming they would never use the word ‘swamped’, they had the cheek to describe Michael Fallon’s language — and, by extension, my own in 2002 — as ‘inflammatory’.

The hypocrisy would be laughable if it were not so offensive. Ukip’s entire political stance is inflammatory, since it is based on stoking up divisions. They are the masters of scare- mongering and scapegoating.

Unfortunately their negative campaigning seems to be having an impact.

One opinion poll revealed yesterday that a third of the electorate would consider voting for Ukip if they thought the party could win in their constituency, though it should also be noted that Ukip is easily the most disliked and feared party in Britain, precisely because of its remorseless negativity.

But any attempt to turn immigration into a taboo subject just plays into Ukip’s hands. The greatest antidote to the party’s bluster is frank, rational discussion, where voters are treated with maturity.

After all, the British people have proved to be remarkably tolerant about the changes brought about by mass immigration over recent decades.

They understand that the vast majority of migrants come here to work and have not only contributed heavily to our economy, but enriched our society in every field, from the arts and sport to food and fashion.

Yet it is foolish to deny some of the problems associated with immigration, as I have seen in certain parts of my own Sheffield Brightside constituency.

As a result of a substantial recent influx of incomers from Eastern Europe, there has been a host of difficulties, such as a lack of interpretation services, exploitation of migrants by rogue landlords, the stress on normal waste collection because of multiple occupation of terrace housing and the gathering of large groups in the streets.

But these issues will not be resolved by attacking foreigners and creating a climate of fear, as Ukip tries to do.

What we need is, first, an honest, calm reflection on how people feel about their neighbourhoods, and then a search for practical solutions.

That means, for instance, enforcing norms of behaviour, introducing an expectation that all citizens should speak the English language, strengthening borders through agreement with other European nations and stipulating that people can claim benefits only on the basis of the contributions they have made to Britain.

That last point was, after all, one of the reasons I proposed what became known as the ID card: a verifiable register of who was in the country, who was entitled to be here, and who had the right to work and to draw on essential services.

Those who have not found work should return to their countries of origin — a requirement that is perfectly applicable within current EU rules.

In simple terms, if you come here to work, you should work, and there should be no access to social security or state housing without having built up an entitlement.

Such measures would help to lance the boil of immigration concerns and thereby restore faith in our democracy.