Jeremy Corbyn is right in his defence of immigration, but he needs to be bold to convince the electorate

Mr Corbyn will have to master his conviction on immigration and refine his offer to the people into a bigger set of migration policies. These must refuse to shrug off the benefits of attracting incomers, while still accepting that there are some Labour voters who feel ignored when they express concerns about rapid cultural change or alien influences in their communities.

The Labour Party delivers his keynote speech on the final day of the Labour Party conference in Liverpool on Wednesday (PA)

Given that Jeremy Corbyn’s second speech as leader to his party’s annual conference – and the first emboldened by his new, larger mandate for power – contained so little policy detail, he was perhaps forced into trailing the most important line in advance, eschewing the usual tactic of pulling hidden rabbits from hats. Journalists and the lobby knew hours before he spoke that a key theme would be making the case for immigration – and that a Corbyn government would not set limits or targets on the number of new migrants.

Though the text of his speech fell short of such a bold commitment, aides confirmed that “Jeremy is not concerned about numbers”. On the podium, Mr Corbyn promised to “tackle the real issues of immigration”, and to offer “investment and assistance, not racism and division”.

The Independent has long advocated the benefits of immigration while acknowledging that, while our economy continues to grow (albeit slower than it might), it will be very hard to control, whatever government is in power and whether in or out of the European Union.

Migrants to this country start companies, create jobs, drive growth, pay more tax than they take out in benefits, and ultimately contribute to a richer social and cultural experience for our communities. And Mr Corbyn is correct in his passionate defence of the role of migrant workers in upholding some of our most prized and precious institutions, including the NHS.

So his position on immigration right, both economically and – particularly in the case of the growing number of refugees entering Europe – morally. Nevertheless, he risks appearing tone deaf to the British public in the way he addresses it.

Mr Corbyn says that under his leadership Labour will “respect democratic decisions, respect our differences and respect each other”. But that must include respecting the democratic decision taken by the British people to leave the EU – a vote highly influenced by the issue of immigration and widespread concern about the way it has changed communities and affected public services.

Mr Corbyn’s promise to reinstate the “very effective” Migrant Impact Fund, set up by Gordon Brown to channel public funding to areas where the highest numbers of migrants have settled and later axed by the Conservatives, will do something to address the practical issues, such as school places, council services and social care provision, that affect all communities rapidly increasing in size. But it doesn’t acknowledge the extent of concern about immigration – and that which goes beyond practicality into sentiment, how people feel – displayed by voters in Labour heartlands when they cast their ballots in the EU referendum.

The shocking fact that assaults on migrants have increased since the referendum, which Mr Corbyn himself pointed out, proves that this is about far more than money and how it is spent. Some of the language he used, for example promising every “British family” the chance of “a decent home”, indicates that he or his speechwriter is aware of that.

The argument on immigration is, however, open for the winning. Before the referendum, polling by Ipsos Mori (which we have quoted in the past, but bears repeating here) found that 39 per cent of Britons said EU immigration had been good while 42 per cent said it had been bad – relatively evenly split. Even among Leave supporters, 19 per cent still though immigration had been positive. When asked how it had been “for you personally”, more than half (51 per cent) said it had made no difference and 27 per cent said it had been good. Only 19 per cent had been negatively affected personally by EU immigration. It is a small but vocal group that Mr Corbyn needs to convince.

His policies on the workplace – a higher minimum wage, an end to zero-hours contracts and a clampdown on illegal exploitation of migrants – and his commitment to build new social housing might begin to allay concerns.

But if he achieves power – and even if he wants to provide a credible and effective opposition to a Conservative Government still riven by splits over Brexit and how to handle it – Mr Corbyn will have to master his conviction on immigration and refine his offer to the people into a bigger set of migration policies. These must refuse to shrug off the benefits of attracting incomers, while still accepting that there are some Labour voters who feel ignored when they express concerns about rapid cultural change or alien influences in their communities.

Acknowledging this would not reduce Labour to “demonising and scapegoating” migrants, as they rightly criticise the Tories for doing. But Mr Corbyn wants to build a society of citizens who are, in his own words, “strong for themselves and strong for each other”, then he needs to spell out exactly what that means, especially for those who have experienced immigration as a widening gap between themselves and those around them.