THE Ancient Greek word for it, because, in keeping with their reputation, the Greeks not only had a word for it, but devised the concept and introduced it to what became European civilization, was “xenia”.

It’s the basis for our notion of hospitality, but was rather stricter and more expansive; it required the host to take in, feed, shelter and not question guests. It required certain things of guests, too (notably that they should be reasonable). It was so central to Greek life that many of their best-known stories, including Odysseus’s blinding of the Cyclops Polyphemus and the cause of the Trojan War itself, have their roots in violations of these duties.

You can’t help wondering how the Home Office would have got on in those days. Because its characteristically xenosceptic (if not quite xenophobic), mean-spirited, bureaucratic approach is the most obvious failing in the UK’s response to Vladimir Putin’s wicked and brutal invasion of Ukraine.

It’s notoriously the worst-run department in Whitehall, anyway. Its shameful (and, not that this is the important point, but politically tin-eared) failure to read the public mood made things slightly worse, if anything, with the mealy-mouthed boasts about a “world’s first” visa scheme, when it is that only because EU countries simply abolished visas.

It’s true, despite the prevailing attitude of social media and some of the press, that the UK has in many respects been world-leading in supporting Ukraine; we’ve trained 22,000 of their troops, including almost all their snipers, since 2014 and supplied the country with arms and support.

Ukrainians approve of Boris Johnson more than any other foreign leader (and much more than UK voters do) and rate Poland and Britain as the most supportive countries, while Putin singled us out for particular condemnation – which should be a point of pride. By some measures we’ve seized, sanctioned or cut off more assets than the US and all the EU 27 combined, though that may just be because there’s so much Russian money in London, and because some countries, especially Germany and the Baltic States, have limited ability to shut down their fuel payments to Russia at the drop of a hat.

But all of this, commendable though it may be, is undermined by the pig-headed obstinacy and inefficiency of our migration and refugee policy. When public sentiment is against migration, the Home Office fails to live up to its own tough talk; when it’s in favour of allowing access, it makes it a bureaucratic nightmare.

We don’t seem able to stop cross-Channel migration, or, conversely, to open our doors in the face of an obvious humanitarian emergency. If people do succeed in getting here, the Home Office prefers to keep them on welfare rather than let them work while their claims are processed – even before Ukraine, there were about 80,000 stuck waiting for the system to decide their fates.

It’s not even that the UK faces any particular risk, huge numbers or obvious problem welcoming people fleeing the country; all the evidence suggests that the vast majority would rather go to neighbouring countries (and obviously, return home as soon as possible). And, at the moment, there’s no shortage of public support or, for that matter, jobs – there are currently around 1.3 million vacancies – for any who do choose to come.

The scheme announced at the weekend by Michael Gove, shamefully belated though it may be, may turn out to be quite a good one, not least because it looks as though it is designed to get round the Home Office’s self-imposed obstacles.

The idea is for households to offer accommodation to Ukrainian refugees, for which they would receive compensation of £350 a month. Meanwhile the Ukrainians themselves would get six months' (probably extended to three years) residency rights, with the ability to work and access schools and NHS services.

There’s a lot to like about this, not least the fact that it doesn’t seem to depend much on the government – leading some people, who hate the idea that anything can be done spontaneously or by volunteers, rather than the state, to complain already. But if we could cut the bureaucracy out, it seems likely that there would be widespread support for this plan.

Alas, it probably won’t be that straightforward. The government wants to vet both hosts (I suppose to see that they’re suitable) and guests (to check they’re not Russian spies or organised criminals). Most of us may not think that’s the top priority.

I doubt that the inducement of £350 a month will lead to fraudulent offers of help, or that the women, children and elderly who will be the vast majority of the visitors are all that likely to be in Putin’s pay. The big question is whether something of the Greek spirit of hospitality – though the goodwill is undoubtedly there – will actually translate into action.

Like, I suspect, quite a lot of people who have children who’ve left home, and thus a bit of spare space, I’ve been wondering whether to volunteer. When push comes to shove, I’m afraid I don’t think we can take the outpouring of similar offers (quite often from celebrities) for granted; Yvette Cooper, you may recall, was going to house Syrian refugees, but as far as I know nothing came of it. Mr Gove was asked if he would take someone in, and said he was thinking of it, but I notice he avoided being pinned down.

Giving up a spare room looks like a small enough thing, especially when balanced against the need and suffering of those coming here. But much will depend on matching people sensitively: some people will welcome young children, or teenagers, others may want to avoid them. Then there is the question of how easy it is to support people who may, understandably, be traumatised by their experience and – the great unknown – how long this crisis will last, and thus what the commitment would involve.

Many of us should at least seriously consider it. While it’s not a decision to be taken lightly, it would certainly be a public-spirited and moral one. The chances of success will be much higher if it is private individuals and voluntary groups, such as charities and churches, who take the lead. If the Home Office gets deeply involved, it will almost certainly fail.