Immigration and Asylum Bill

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 13th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Chris Philp]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. For many nationalities that cross the English channel by small boat—Afghan, Iranian, Iraqi, Eritrean and Sudanese, to name just six or seven—the asylum grant rate is well over 90%. In some cases, it is very close to 100%, which means that crossing by small boat is tantamount to an automatic right to stay here, even though those illegal immigrants—and they are illegal immigrants—are leaving a safe country. They are not fleeing danger; they were in France already. I agree that that creates a massive pull factor.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Your Party)]

I know the shadow Minister is an intelligent man who thinks a lot about these things. Has he considered for a moment why there are so many refugees globally, and why there are 70 million people without a home to call their own? Has he considered the effects of wars, environmental disaster and human rights abuses on populations around the world? Should there not be an international effort to try to help those people, as well as to deal with the problems at home? Does putting up barbed wire all around the world solve the problem, or create an even worse situation globally?

[Chris Philp]

I agree that the situation in countries such as Afghanistan creates large movements of people—that is correct—and fixing problems at source is clearly the best thing to do. However, I do not think transferring potentially tens of millions of people—he gave the number just then of 60 million or 70 million—into the west is the right solution to this problem. Those people who are displaced are probably better helped close to their country of origin. Transporting people en masse into this country is not the solution. When we have illegal migration under control, by which I mean at zero, there is a case for a limited safe and legal route, but until such time as we do that, I do not think such a transfer is reasonable.

By the way, the people who are crossing by small boat are not the most vulnerable. They are not typically women and children, or people who are sick and vulnerable. They are mostly young men who are paying people smugglers. If we were going to choose who to help, it would not be them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Your Party)]

The media, Reform and all on the far right in Britain have created the most horrible and dangerous atmosphere in this country against refugees, migrants and minorities. They have promoted racism, and that racism has played out in the violence on the streets, the violence against mosques, the violence against synagogues, and the violence against any minority group within our society. They should think very carefully about what they say and how they depict asylum seekers and refugees. When I listen to the rhetoric in the media and follow it in some of the papers, it seems to me that they have taken leave of all aspects of humanity.

The hon. Member for Sunderland Central (Lewis Atkinson) said that he had been over to northern France to examine what was going on there. I have been over to northern France as well—I have been over to Calais and talked to people living in tents, and they are desperate. They are desperate people who once worked for the British Army in Afghanistan. They are desperate people who were bombed in Iraq or in Syria. They are desperate people trying to find somewhere in this world to survive, and what they find is hostility, danger and abuse.

Nobody in their right mind would get into one of those dinghies and cross the channel unless they were utterly desperate to do so, so can we not just have a sense of humanity about this and have an international, Europe-wide approach to the issues faced by people who are desperate? Thousands have died crossing the Mediterranean, and hundreds have died crossing the channel. The historians of the next century will say of this century, “What were the politicians of Europe doing while all these people were drowning because they were trying to get to a place of safety?” Can we not instead accept the importance of international institutions and the value of the European convention on human rights, which protects all of our human rights, and try to have a humane system of doing things?

In the last minute I have for my speech, I want to draw attention to the amendment I have tabled, endorsed by Members of the independent alliance group, which concerns the Afghan resettlement schemes. The people of Afghanistan have suffered grievously from the war. In August 2021, the Taliban took over in Kabul; the UK created resettlement schemes, and then dropped them all. Now, we have the horrible situation in which, although many Afghan families who have come to Britain as part of those schemes were told that the rest of their family could come, there are many dependants stuck in Afghanistan who can have no place here. The Government, through the Ministry of Defence and the Home Office, guaranteed that right of family reunion and guaranteed that extended family members could come here. When the Minister for Border Security and Asylum responds to the debate, I hope he will remember the words of the Afghan International Council in the United Kingdom, who said that

“many Afghan families continue to endure the pain of prolonged separation”—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. I call Rachel Taylor.

National Security (State Threats) Bill

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 17th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Shabana Mahmood]

I do not agree with the hon. Lady’s construction of

proposed new section 33G, but I am sure that we can pick up that point in Committee, when we do line-by-line scrutiny. The Bill is intended to be read alongside all our other pieces of international and human rights legislation, and the Bill is compliant with our domestic and international human rights obligations.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Your Party)]

The Bill gives considerably more powers to the Home Secretary and the Government, so it results in greater Executive power. Further to earlier interventions, is she not concerned that the Executive, and this branch of the Executive, are to have much greater power, but there is no commensurate increase in bodies’ accountability to Parliament for deciding what organisations and which individuals are to be sanctioned, and what the system will be for making those decisions? We have been through this process many times, going right back to the Prevention of Terrorism Acts in the 1970s. Does she not feel that there is a danger of our moving too far away from parliamentary and public accountability for the very important decision to deny liberty to various individuals, who will have difficulty challenging that legally?

[Shabana Mahmood]

I disagree with the right hon. Gentleman almost entirely. The Executive have a responsibility to protect and maintain this country’s national security, and we have to move when we see that hostile actors are employing new methods to put our people and interests at risk. We have seen an increase in hostile activity from those who are not directly related to foreign powers, but have a relationship with them. That is why we are bringing forward the designated body condition in the Bill. It rather sounds as if he questions the basis for us having counter-terror legislation, or this legislation, at all. I disagree with him on that. I think we have a suitable legal framework, under both the Terrorism Act 2000 and this new Bill, to deal with all the threats that this country faces, including those that are emerging as new ways for people to put our citizens at risk.

Let me turn to the threat posed by Iran. We are debating this Bill in the shadow of a recent surge in hostile activity by the Iranian state. In just a single year, MI5 has tracked and disrupted over 20 potentially lethal Iranian plots. These have targeted dissidents, media organisations and critics of the Iranian regime, and they pose a real and enduring threat to our Jewish community here at home.

Protest Policing

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Wednesday 11th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Shabana Mahmood]

I am sorry to disappoint the right hon. Gentleman, but I am Labour all day long. I enjoy swatting Conservatives, Lib Dems, Greens and everybody else at my leisure, and I will continue to do so.

The Father of the House is right about the law. There is a high bar for any banning order to be requested or granted under the framework set out in the Public Order Act. He is absolutely right that it should be a high bar. People are allowed to have their own views, and we should not be seeking to shut down views which, although offensive or provocative, are still within the law. It is important that we always ensure that the law is followed, and any attempts to interfere with freedom of expression or assembly should always meet a high bar. I am very satisfied that, in the specific and unique circumstances set out for the public procession that had been planned, that test has been met. Of course, the other protests can and should go ahead, and the full force of the law will always be applied.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

What consideration did the Home Secretary give to compliance with articles 10 and 11 of the European convention on human rights on the right to protest? What discussions did the Metropolitan police have with the organisers of this planned march to ensure that it could go ahead safely and would be properly stewarded and properly run? In my experience, the police are very accommodating and keen to have long discussions with march organisers to make sure that the right to protest is maintained in our society. There is a slippery slope here, because banning a march that is not necessarily a very popular march may lead to draconian banning orders on all kinds of protests within our society.

[Shabana Mahmood]

First, on the European convention on human rights, the right hon. Gentleman is right that articles 9 to 11 are relevant to the matters we are discussing. However, those are qualified rights—they have always been qualified rather than absolute rights—which means that the state can limit them in specific circumstances as long as the legal tests of proportionality and so on are maintained. I am confident that the legal arrangements we have in this country, as set out in the Public Order Act, are fully in compliance with our convention obligations, and that there is a very high bar for the powers in section 13 of the Public Order Act. I am satisfied that that high bar has been met on this occasion.

The Met police have been policing the al-Quds Day procession for many years. It is an annual event, and they have policed it even when there has been huge opposition to its going ahead. They have faced a lot of pressure over many years to seek a ban, and they have never done so. I am very confident that they have assessed the risk posed by this procession in the current context, particularly the range and number of counter-protesting marches planned for the same day; managing five different marches at the same time in the same bit of London presents a unique challenge for policing. I think they have made a fair point and a strong case, and I have agreed with them on this occasion.

Asylum Policy

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Monday 17th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Shabana Mahmood]

We are closing that loophole through the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill, and it is important that colleagues support us when that is debated again on Wednesday. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that closing loopholes and ensuring that everyone is subject to a right-to-work check, thereby building support for a rule-of-law approach to the way that people access employment in this country, is incredibly important. I hope that all colleagues, even Opposition Members, will support those measures later this week.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

Nowhere in the Home Secretary’s statement does she put this into any kind of global context. Millions of people have become refugees or homeless all around the world, and more than two thirds of them are housed by the southern countries—the poorest countries in the world—with the least resources to do it. She is putting in draconian measures against refugees trying to come to this country, failing to recognise that more than 6,000 of those who have crossed the channel this year come from Afghanistan, a war-torn country that we helped to make into a war-torn country. She is instead trying to appease the most ghastly right-wing, racist forces all across Europe in undermining and walking away from the European convention on human rights—a convention created by the post-war Labour Government. Does she not recognise that history is going to be a harsh judge of this Government for undermining the global humanitarian principles behind the ECHR and the universal declaration of human rights?

[Shabana Mahmood]

Not for the first time, I am a little mystified as to what the right hon. Gentleman is talking about. He starts with the global context. I guess my starting point is different from his, because I start with our domestic context first. He ought to know that in this country there have already been bespoke schemes for the resettlement of people from Afghanistan, so perhaps he could read up on those schemes. He should also have heard from what I said in my statement that we remain absolutely committed to offering sanctuary to those who are fleeing conflict abroad. We think that the best way to do that is not to encourage people to get on a boat in the channel by paying thousands and thousands of pounds to people smugglers.

By the way, it is not just smuggling that is a vile crime; those individuals are involved in all sorts of other, disgusting organised crime. They should not be in receipt of money from vulnerable people. I want to disincentive people from making that choice, and I want to incentivise people to come on safe and legal routes instead. If the right hon. Gentleman had actually read the asylum policy statement, he would know that it is the policy position of this Government to provide more safe and legal routes. Once he has done more reading, I will be happy to answer more of his questions.

Huntingdon Train Attack

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Monday 3rd November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Shabana Mahmood]

I repeat the earlier answers I have given in relation to funding. My hon. Friend should rest assured that we are discussing these matters with the Department for Transport.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

In the review, will the Home Secretary undertake to look at the very serious problems of some trains operating without any staff on them at all, some very busy trains having insufficient staff, and hundreds of stations all over the country having no staff at all, particularly in the evenings, when the travelling public are obviously vulnerable and at risk? Can we pause driver-only operated trains and look at the issue of safety for the public as a whole?

[Shabana Mahmood]

We will be led by the operational assessment made by the British Transport police as to what is required. The right hon. Gentleman should rest assured that where the Government have a role to play in keeping people safe on the transport network, we will do so.

Points of Order

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Tuesday 21st October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. May I invite you to examine column 652 from yesterday’s Hansard, during the exchange about Maccabi Tel Aviv supporters travelling to Aston Villa. In reply to my question, the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport said she agreed with me about the safety of everyone walking the streets, but she went on to say:

“Perhaps he might make that point to the people he now associates with on his left and right, because that is not what we have heard from them in the last few weeks.”—[Official Report, 20 October 2025; Vol. 773, c. 652.]

There is a suggestion in that that my colleagues have done something other than say that everyone should be able to walk the streets safely in our society. They were concerned about the danger from football supporters acting in a hooliganistic way at the Aston Villa game. I think the Secretary of State should correct what she said—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Jeremy—come on. You have certainly put your view on the record, but what we will not do is continue the debate. You know that as a long-standing Member of this House who has great respect. I will leave it at that, because you have certainly ensured that we are all aware of that correction.

Palestine Action: Proscription and Protests

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Monday 8th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dan Jarvis]

I completely agree with all my hon. Friend’s points. He knows and I know, and I am sure the House knows, that had the Government taken a different decision, I would be standing here at the Dispatch Box seeking to justify that decision as well.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

May I ask the Minister to reflect for a moment on the fact that this is the largest number of people arrested since the Terrorism Act 2000 came into force? Those people who were protesting on Saturday were protesting at the horror of the genocide in Gaza, and British complicity in it through arms sales and military co-operation and support. They are deeply concerned about civil liberties in our society, and feel that the legislation rushed through this Parliament damages their right to civil peaceful protest in our society.

The Minister knows that the weight of history is against him. He knows that at some point the Government will have to review this legislation, because otherwise the situation will simply get worse and worse. Can he not just bring himself to say now that the Government will look at it again, review the whole situation, and, rather than proscribing peaceful protest in our society, accept that we have a history behind us that brought us all here, and is built on protest and dissent?

[Dan Jarvis]

The right hon. Gentleman has been a Member of this House for a very, very long time, so he will know that this legislation was not rushed through Parliament. It came through Parliament in the same way that other proscription actions have come through over many, many years.

Let me seek, perhaps, two points of consensus. The first involves freedom of speech. I do not know what the right hon. Gentleman was up to at the weekend, but I have a sneaking suspicion that he may have been on the streets of London, and good luck to him. It is his absolute democratic right to protest in the way in which he is well known for doing. The Government have done nothing to stand in the way of him and his colleagues in that regard. Let me, however, say one more thing to him. Although he and I may disagree on many things, I hope that, as supporters of the trade union movement, we agree on the importance of people’s safety in the workplace. He asked me to consider something; perhaps I should ask him to consider the importance of safeguarding people’s safety and security in the workplace, which is not a matter to which the organisation that we are discussing today has given much consideration.

Orgreave Inquiry

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dame Diana Johnson]

My hon. Friend speaks with great knowledge about how Orgreave has affected her community so many years on. She makes the important point that there is a political context to this inquiry. Those of us who were around then know that it was a very political time, with the miners’ strike and all that. It is absolutely right that we have this opportunity to look across the piece at what happened at Orgreave. As my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton and Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) said, there was perhaps the involvement of other politicians, so it is important that we recognise the political context. That is why, again, it is so important that the inquiry will be put on a statutory footing, to allow documents to be demanded and witnesses to be compelled to give evidence.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

First, I welcome the statement that has been made by the Minister today. It is an enormous step forward, and we should pay a huge tribute to the Orgreave Truth and Justice Campaign, and in particular Kate Flannery and Chris Peace and their colleagues, for all the great work that they have done for a long time. Labour pledged to hold an inquiry in its last three manifestos—in 2017, 2019 and 2024—so this is a good step forward.

Will the Minister bear in mind carefully what the hon. Member for Normanton and Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) said in his excellent question? Lives were ruined. People were badly injured as a result of Orgreave. They suffered for many years and were unable to work because they were blacklisted and for other reasons. Charges were made on trumped-up evidence and consequently people suffered. It has gone on for a long time.

We need to know a number of things. Will the terms of reference allow evidence to be taken under oath from wherever it needs to be taken, and from whoever was there? Arthur Scargill and many others, and all those surviving miners who were there must be given time to explain exactly what happened. We also need to know the role of South Yorkshire police in the attacks that took place against those miners, so that we can get to the truth. I realise that putting a timetable on an inquiry is a slightly difficult thing to do, because we do not want to prevent the inquiry from getting all the evidence it needs, but we also do not want the inquiry to run on forever and lose its impetus and purpose. Can the Minister therefore give us some idea of roughly how long she expects the inquiry to take to report? Is she prepared to accept interim reports, so that rapid progress can be made?

Will the Minister assure the House that where the evidence leads to the culpability of Ministers, police officers, senior civil servants or many others throughout the command chain for the events that the hon. Member for Normanton and Hemsworth explained, prosecutions will follow, with evidence put before the courts and, if necessary, people brought to justice for it? We have to bring justice to the totality of this event.

[Dame Diana Johnson]

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman about paying tribute to the Orgreave Truth and Justice Campaign. I had the privilege to meet some of the members of that campaign, and I fully acknowledge and appreciate how lives were ruined and families have suffered a lot. Not just the people there on the day, but the wider families have suffered. It is absolutely right that we set up this inquiry; lives have been ruined.

I know that the chair will take note of the right hon. Gentleman’s comments about what he would like to see in the terms of reference. As to the timetable, I absolutely agree. I want this inquiry to be conducted as quickly as possible, but as thoroughly as possible. We were looking at a timeframe of around two years, but that was in the early discussions that we had. I obviously cannot prejudge the recommendations of the inquiry; we will need to look at those recommendations when they are made.

Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd July 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)]

I beg to move,

That the draft Terrorism Act 2000 (Proscribed Organisations) (Amendment) Order 2025, which was laid before this House on 30 June, be approved.

I am grateful to the House for its consideration of this draft order, which will see three distinct groups proscribed: Maniacs Murder Cult, Palestine Action and the Russian Imperial Movement.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

On that point, will the Minister give way?

[Carla Denyer (Bristol Central) (Green)]

Will the Minister give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Dan Jarvis]

I will give way to the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn).

[Jeremy Corbyn]

I am grateful to the Minister. The question that many of us want to put to him is this: why has he linked these three organisations together? He clearly has made a judgment on each of the three organisations independently of each other. I and many others outside, I am sure, think it would be fair if we took individual votes on the three. Many of us are very concerned about the issue facing Palestine Action, and that is the issue we wish to address in the debate.

[Dan Jarvis]

I can say to the right hon. Gentleman that I will move on to that and will explain with real clarity precisely why we have proceeded in the way that we have. I suspect that he has a long memory. I am sure that he will recall that he has voted against proscribing a number of organisations previously, including al-Qaeda in 2001, when the motion was bundled along with 20 other militant organisations, so there is clear precedent for doing this. The reason we seek to do it is to demonstrate that we do not attach any kind of ideological prism with which to seek to make a judgment. The Home Secretary will take a view based on a legal threshold, and that is the basis on which we have proceeded.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

As the debate opened, I intervened on the Minister, and I am grateful to him for giving way. I just need an explanation—I hope that we will get one—as to why groups are always put together in these orders and not dealt with separately. There are clearly different orders of concern here. I want to speak solely about Palestine Action.

We live in a democratic society, and we have to understand where our rights have come from. The hon. Member for High Peak (Jon Pearce) represents the place where in 1932 the mass trespass took place, led by Benny Rothman—a Jewish activist in the Communist party at that time—who was demanding rights of access to the countryside. He was roundly condemned by all the mass media and the Government of the day, he was put on trial and he was put in prison. He was eventually released from prison after mass protests in his support. Without Benny Rothman and those others, that access to the countryside simply would not have happened at that time.

We can look at all the other people who over decades of our history have stood up for free speech and democracy. We can go back to the Chartists, to the suffragettes and to those who campaigned to end apartheid in South Africa. Interestingly, during all the apartheid years, while the British Government did condemn the African National Congress and did indeed believe for a while that Nelson Mandela was a terrorist, they never banned the ANC in Britain, because they were advised that it was important that there should be a place where people could express that voice of hope for the end of apartheid.

The women who went to Greenham Common to protest about the deployment of nuclear weapons there were never labelled as terrorists either. Yes, they were charged with criminal trespass, as many others have been. Indeed, those who undertake direct action are well aware of the risks they take. However, it crosses an enormous threshold to suddenly make such an announcement about Palestine Action, which speaks out against the horrors of what is happening in Gaza, where hundreds are mown down every day by the Israel Defence Forces simply for queuing for food when they are desperately hungry and their children are starving. Surely we should be looking at the issue that Palestine Action is concerned about, as well as the supply of weapons from this country to Israel, which has made all that possible.

If the order goes through today, it will have a chilling effect on protest. I quote a letter sent to the Home Secretary on 28 June:

“Direct action is a longstanding and respected part of British political history. From the suffragettes chaining themselves to railings, to striking miners, to anti-apartheid campaigners occupying institutions and disrupting trade, civil disobedience and direct action have always been necessary forces for progress and justice.”

[Mr Lee Dillon (Newbury) (LD)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Jeremy Corbyn]

I will not.

That letter comes from Bibi Khan, the chair of North London Council of Mosques, and Muhammad Uddin from Newham Muslim Forum, on behalf of the London councils of mosques that are concerned about the chilling effect that this piece of legislation, if agreed today, will have on the rights to protest as a whole.

My last point—I hope the Minister can reply to this if he gets the chance—is that legal action is being taken. There will be a hearing in the High Court this Friday about judicial review of this case. Can it be made clear that the order will not be put into force until all legal avenues have been exhausted and that there will not be a temporary imposition, later to be withdrawn if there is successful legal action? We need to know that all democratic avenues have been fully explored in this process.

Immigration

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Wednesday 21st May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Chris Philp]

I will give way in a minute. In advancing the case that we have a problem with social cohesion and a lack of integration, I will present some evidence—it is not an assertion—in support of that. The most recent census revealed that a million of our fellow citizens do not speak English at all or properly. In one part of east London, 73% of children do not speak English as their first language. Some nationalities have extremely low rates of economic activity or very high rates of economic inactivity. For example, among people born in the middle east and north Africa, economic inactivity rates are 40%. That is double the rate for people born in the UK. Among people born in south and east Asia, the economic inactivity rate is 50% higher than it is for people born in the UK. By contrast, the economic inactivity rate for those born in Australia or New Zealand is only half the level of the UK-born population.

I am afraid to say that when it comes to crime and offending, there are some immigrant groups where levels of criminality are very high. For example, Afghans are 20 times more likely to commit sex offences than average. People of Congolese origin are 12 times more likely to commit violence, and Algerians are 18 times more likely to commit theft.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

Will the shadow Home Secretary give way?

[Chris Philp]

I will give way in just a moment. These figures illustrate that we have a problem with integration, and that is why we need to get these numbers dramatically down, until such time as we can address these issues.

Let me turn to the economy, because it has long been thought that net migration is an unalloyed economic good. Indeed, that is one reason why successive Governments of both colours over some decades allowed immigration to get so high and to stay too high. [Interruption.] Both Governments, over many decades. Recent analysis, however, has shown that that belief is simply not true. Office for Budget Responsibility analysis last year showed for the first time that low-wage migration costs the Exchequer money. It is not a net contributor, but a net draw on the Exchequer. It costs other taxpayers money at low-wage levels, particularly where there are large numbers of dependants. It has reduced per capita GDP, which affects the level of affluence enjoyed by the population, and it is one reason that productivity in our economy has flatlined for so long. Businesses have reached for mass low-skill migration instead of investing in technology or automation, or simply becoming more productive.

That has all happened while 9 million of our fellow citizens of working age remain economically inactive. Many of those have caring responsibilities, some genuinely cannot work and others are studying, but many of those 9 million—likely more than half—could and in my view should be in the workforce, instead of large numbers of low-wage, low-skilled migrants being imported.

It is time for a different approach. We need to end the era of mass low-skilled migration and instead focus on small numbers of very high-skilled workers who should be welcomed. We need to invest more in technology and we need to get more UK residents of working age into work, including by investing in training and by reforming the welfare system. I think somebody wanted to intervene, so I will give way.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jeremy Corbyn]

When the right hon. Member has finished denigrating every community that has made its home in this country, will he reflect for a moment on the massive contribution made in education, in health, in transport and in many other industries by people who have come to this country? When he goes into a hospital, does he criticise those people who have come from another country and are working in our hospitals, looking after us and the health service, or is he interested only in denigrating people because they were born speaking a different language and they look different from him?

[Chris Philp]

I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman was listening very carefully. I expressly said that highly skilled migrants do make a contribution and should be welcomed, and when I referred to issues involving social housing, economic inactivity and criminality, I was reading out facts. I was reading out census data published by the Office for National Statistics. Those are facts. The right hon. Gentleman may not like the facts, but they are facts none the less. [Interruption.]