Ignoring the impact of immigration is no longer an option, argue Nick Clegg and Simon Hughes

The public debate on immigration is changing. In part, this is because of a step change in the number of economic migrants coming to the UK since the mid 1990s, and a sharp increase in those coming from central and eastern Europe following the latest enlargement of the EU.

In part, it is because concerns on the left and centre- left of British politics about the impact of large-scale economic immigration on wage levels and working conditions have become more vocal. Immigration is no longer a preoccupation only of the right. Last summer, Polly Toynbee, Frank Field and John Denham led the charge against what they allege to be an excessively liberal immigration policy.

Finally, public opinion itself has hardened dramatically. According to Mori, until 1999, the number of people citing immigration as among the most important issues facing Britain stood at below 10%. That figure has now more than quadrupled, and immigration consistently features in the top three issues that voters say are of greatest concern to them.

How should liberals react to this fast changing and highly emotive issue? Simply ignoring it is not an option. No serious political party can remain silent on something that is of such importance to the public. Nor should we ever seek to play catch-up with tabloid driven hysteria about immigration. The last thing British politics needs is more policy populism on immigration.

But we do need to do more to set out the case for a liberal, managed immigration policy. It is no longer sufficient simply to assert that an open immigration policy is good for Britain. The truth is that the benefits of large-scale immigration only become possible if three conditions are met.

First, the system by which immigration is managed must be competent, and must work. The chaos and administrative incompetence of the government’s Immigration and Nationality Directorate is now well documented. It is absurd that it took the government ten years to decide to introduce a fairer and more efficient points-based system, and to create a Border and Immigration Agency at arm’s length from the government, as advocated by Liberal Democrats. That Gordon Brown should belatedly acknowledge the Liberal Democrat case for an integrated Border Force in a surprise announcement just before the summer recess – but do so without incorporating the police powers that will be essential to its success – is a measure of the government’s stopgap approach to the organisation of our immigration system.

Second, we must plan for the effects of large-scale inward immigration. The slow and centralised allocation of money to local authorities from Whitehall, and the inaccuracy of official statistics, have failed to keep up with the demands made on local services by immigration. Government statistics suggested that there were only 300 new non-British citizens in Slough in 2004, yet the local Job Centre Plus issued 9,000 new National Insurance Numbers, of which only 150 were from British applicants.

Even when national statistics manage to pick up population changes, it takes years for those changes to be reflected in central government grants to local councils. Once again, our councils are having to pick up the pieces created by shortsighted central government policy. In some areas, particularly urban wards, there is evidence too that immigration may have exacerbated – but not caused – the long-term shortage of affordable social housing.

Third, we must be more proactive in advocating integration as well as immigration. They must go hand in hand if a liberal immigration policy is to win public confidence. Present government policy is all over the shop. Cutting public funding for English language classes, when language barriers remain the biggest impediments to integration, is self-defeating in the extreme. While there is some virtue in the newly introduced ‘Life in the UK Test’ for those seeking to live permanently in the UK, it has become a rote learning general knowledge test for most applicants rather than a practical tool for integration into day-to-day life in Britain.

Most worryingly, neither Labour nor the Conservatives have anything to say about the large number of irregular residents now in the UK who live in a twilight world of illegality and exploitation. It is impossible to say with precision exactly how many people are living illegally in the UK, but the government itself estimates that there are up to 600,000 individuals who are either visa overstayers, failed asylum seekers or illegal entrants now living in the UK.

How do the Conservatives and Labour seriously propose to deport them all, as they claim they will? This is the politics of the madhouse, since there is not the faintest prospect of them ever doing so and, with enforced deportations costing around £11,000 each, efforts to do so would be hugely expensive. Any party truly concerned about an underclass of workers bereft of all rights and all representation, and cut off from access to any public services, needs to think anew about how some of these people could over time become legitimately integrated back into society.

For all these reasons, we are bringing a motion to Conference in Brighton to strengthen our party’s policy on immigration. We have consulted widely with think tanks, campaign groups and others on our approach. Given the regular use of false or misleading statistics in the debate, the motion is explicit in setting out the facts.

We live in an age of global migration, with 191 million people now living in a country other than the one in which they are born. It is true that inward immigration into the UK in recent years is without precedent in the post-war period, rising steadily from the mid-1990s to a total net immigration of 185,000 in 2005 (565,000 in, 380,000 out), and over 600,000 workers from the new EU Member States have come to the UK to work (though we don’t know how many have returned, or are likely to stay). We should never forget that we are a country of high emigration too, with more Britons living permanently abroad (estimated at around 5.5 million) than foreigners living in the UK.

We value the global freedom of movement for ourselves, so we should never lightly deny it to others.

The motion restates our belief in improved border controls through the creation of a properly resourced and empowered National Border Force, and the rapid reintroduction of exit checks at all ports so that we have a better idea of exactly who has entered and left the country.

There will be some, understandably, who believe that we should instead be moving towards entry into the EU’s borderless Schengen area, rather than erecting new border controls. However, our existing party policy that entry into Schengen is not possible until the controls on the EU’s external borders are improved remains valid. More importantly, in our view it is difficult to pursue a liberal strategy of integration and immigration within Britain itself unless we first put in place more effective controls at our own external borders. Internal liberalism requires workable external controls – eminently preferable to the government’s strategy of imposing ever more stringent internal controls on all of us through the intrusive use of ID Cards.

The motion also suggests that work permits paid by businesses to employ immigrant workers should be increased in line with international trends. Irrationally, the government has raised visa fees to punitive levels in recent years, yet kept the price of work permits comparatively low. We believe that employers should be asked to pay a fair price, calculated as a proportion of the starting salary of the employee (so that a work permit for a city banker is far higher than that for a nurse), and that the money raised should go directly towards schemes to re-train British workers in those sectors which have been most affected by large scale inward immigration.

Other ideas included in the motion cover issues such as the need to boost English language learning among those presently unwilling or unable to learn; reforming the Life in the UK Test to give it greater practical value; spreading best practice in social housing allocations policy; and a radical improvement in the arbitrary and inefficient visa services at many UK consulates around the world affecting the rights of thousands of short term visitors to the UK such as relatives and students.

But arguably, the most controversial part of the motion is our proposal that there should be a pathway of earned citizenship made available to those who have been living here unauthorised for many years, subject to a number of tests. Importantly, we do not believe that a blanket amnesty is justified, as evidence from other countries such as Belgium and Spain suggests it simply becomes a catalyst for further illegal immigration. Instead, our intention is to set rigorous criteria by which legalisation of residency can occur: that the applicant should have lived in the UK for at least ten years; that she/he has a clean criminal record; that she/he can show a long term commitment to the UK; that the application is subject to a public interest test and an English language and civics test; and finally that a charge is paid that can be reduced or redeemed in full in return for a period of volunteering or service in the community.

If these various hurdles are passed, the applicant would initially be granted a two-year work permit before moving forward to the final phase of ‘regularisation’. This measured, targeted policy to bring long-term residents out from the shadows, in which they live an illegal and often exploited existence, into a legitimate status would also produce economic dividends: one report estimates the total loss to the Exchequer of unpaid tax and NI contributions from people working clandestinely to be as much as £3.3 billion.

Our opponents might well attack us on this proposal. But our answer is simple: what do they suggest? If all they do is repeat the fantasy view that they will deport everyone, then they don’t have a leg to stand on.

By adopting this proposal, and the motion as a whole, we believe that our party once again would be at the forefront of a major issue of public debate. It seeks to prove that a liberal, managed immigration policy can be both efficient and fair.

Nick Clegg is Liberal Democrat MP for Sheffield Hallam and Shadow Home Secretary. Simon Hughes is Liberal Democrat MP for Southwark North & Bermondsey and Shadow Leader of the House of Commons