Asylum seekers arriving in Britain are being given official Home Office guidance explaining that rape is a crime, children cannot consent to sex and women have equal rights, raising an obvious and deeply uncomfortable question, just who are we allowing into our country?
There are moments when a government policy tells you rather more than ministers probably intended.
The Home Office is now issuing asylum seekers with guidance explaining some of the most basic rules of life in Britain, including that women and men have equal rights, sex requires consent, children under 16 cannot legally consent to sex, and having sex with somebody without their consent is rape.
Yes, really.
The official guidance, entitled Understanding behaviours and expectations in the UK: a guide for asylum seekers, warns new arrivals that British laws and customs may differ from those in their countries of origin.
Among the subjects considered sufficiently important to spell out are gender equality, sexual consent, the age of consent, harassment and acceptable behaviour towards women in public.
Asylum seekers are informed that women in Britain are free to work, study and travel without requiring a man’s permission, and that men and women enjoy equal rights under British law.
They are also explicitly told that sex without consent constitutes rape, that consent can be withdrawn at any point, and that somebody who is asleep, drunk or otherwise incapable of giving clear consent should not be subjected to sexual activity.
The document also explains that the age of consent in Britain is 16 and warns that sexual activity with somebody below that age is a serious criminal offence.
Migrants are further instructed not to follow people, block their path, make unwanted sexual remarks, whistle at them, make kissing noises or use offensive gestures.
Perhaps Labour ministers imagine that the publication of a nine-page booklet represents decisive government action.
For millions of Britons, however, it is likely to provoke a rather more fundamental question.
Why is the Government admitting people into Britain whom it apparently believes may need to be explicitly instructed that rape is illegal, children cannot consent to sex and women do not require permission from men to live their lives?
These are not obscure points of British etiquette.
We are not talking about explaining why Britons queue, drive on the left or apologise when somebody else bumps into them.
We are talking about some of the most fundamental principles of a civilised society, the bodily autonomy of women, the protection of children and the absolute requirement for consent.
There is, of course, an important distinction to make. The existence of this guidance does not mean every asylum seeker arriving in Britain holds unacceptable attitudes towards women, nor does it mean that every person receiving it presents a danger.
But that does not make the Government’s decision to issue such detailed instructions any less extraordinary.
Indeed, the Home Office itself says that failure to obey British law can result in police involvement, loss of asylum support and consequences for an individual’s asylum claim.
And this is not entirely new. Home Office accommodation guidance published years ago already included explanations of sexual abuse, the age of consent and the fact that sexual contact with somebody who is asleep, unconscious or incapacitated by alcohol is an offence.
That should prompt serious questions about integration and immigration policy which Labour cannot simply dismiss as politically inconvenient.
The Telegraph reported that Reform UK leader Nigel Farage responded to the new guidance by asking why people requiring such instruction were being allowed into the country, while Shadow Home Secretary Chris Philp argued that Britain should remove foreign nationals who commit sexual offences rather than attempting to educate them about acceptable behaviour.
The debate comes amid wider concern about foreign national offending. The Home Office has itself expanded the publication of statistics on foreign national offenders, including breakdowns by nationality and offence group.
However, care is needed when politicians make sweeping claims about asylum seekers and crime. The Office for National Statistics has previously said it does not hold comprehensive crime figures broken down specifically by asylum seeker status, meaning claims about offending rates among asylum seekers as a group cannot simply be inferred from figures covering all foreign nationals.
That distinction matters.
But so does the question Labour would undoubtedly prefer not to answer.
Immigration policy cannot simply be about processing claims, finding accommodation and managing numbers. It must also be about whether those permitted to remain in this country understand and accept the fundamental values upon which British society operates.
Britain should not be embarrassed about insisting upon those standards.
Women are equal to men.
Children are children.
No means no.
Rape is a serious crime.
Nobody coming to Britain has the right to import attitudes that conflict with those principles, and cultural background can never be accepted as an excuse for criminal behaviour.
The Home Office says everyone coming to Britain is expected to obey British law and that those who do not can face consequences, including refusal of an asylum claim and removal from the country.
Good.
But Labour should go considerably further.
Anyone granted the privilege of making Britain their home should understand that respecting women, protecting children and obeying our laws are not optional extras to be explained away by cultural difference.
And where a foreign national commits serious sexual or violent offences, the Government should use every lawful power available to remove them from this country once justice has been served.
A government can print as many explanatory booklets as it likes.
The question the British public deserves answered is much simpler.
Why has it become necessary to explain in the first place?
