If freedom of movement may be described as one of the most ancient and least protected customary rights, in the context of migration it must be recognised as one of the most contentious.

In general terms, international law denies any such right. In carefully defined circumstances, international instruments such as the Refugee Convention and European Convention on Human Rights require signatory governments to permit it. For most European citizens and certain dependants, the right may be conditionally asserted in all countries of the union.

Domestic regulation of immigration and nationality is a miasma of constant change. The government recently consulted on a bill to simplify immigration law but, even if the bill becomes law, simplicity is unlikely to be the main outcome. In the UK, immigration as a distinct field of practice is under 50 years old.

Almost all politicians assert pride in Britain’s historic willingness to provide refuge from persecution. Most accept that some economic benefit has arisen from immigration, despite concerns about numbers, costs and abuses. However, every election in the last 40 years has involved some immigration controversy. In a pre-emptive speech in March, the prime minister sought to calm the debate – but was reprimanded by the UK Statistics Authority for misusing immigration figures.

Rational debate requires calmness and accuracy, but fairness in immigration policy makes further demands. In The Idea of Justice, Amartya Sen cites Mary Wollstonecraft: ‘It is unsustainable to have a defence of the freedom of human beings that separates some people whose liberties matter from others not [to] be included.’ There are valid national, social and economic considerations, but no specifically ‘British’ concern should be allowed to confuse family or other fundamental human rights.

I became chair of the Law Society’s immigration law committee last September. We are accountable to council, to which we provide expert policy advice, and we work on practice notes, such as on human trafficking.

We respond to many government consultations, for example: concerning reaccreditation to qualify for the 2010 Legal Services Commission immigration contract; the terms of the civil contract specification; and implementation of earned citizenship. We also make representations, such as recently on: the increased tendency of the UK Border Agency to bypass instructed solicitors and communicate directly with clients; and ethical questions for solicitors acting for corporate clients in the immigration points-based system (PBS). Urgent issues have arisen concerning restriction of the role of solicitors in respect of PBS, and regarding the greatly reduced profitability of immigration legal aid practice.

The Law Society has no lobbying role in respect of the volume or nature of immigration. Immigration solicitors are employed as advocates both for and against the claims of individuals; for and against government policy and practice; and to adjudicate claims. Representation of the range of views is necessarily concerned with fairness, transparency and effectiveness in the rule of law, and not with any particular politics.

The representative nature of the committee is achieved by progressively refreshing our membership from the widest possible spectrum of immigration practice. We all bring to meetings experience from practice and from contact with colleagues.

‘Campaigning for fairness’ meetings are intended to strengthen two-way communication with immigration solicitors. It is essential that problems, proposals and concrete evidence reach the Law Society promptly to strengthen our capacity to make an impact.

In the constant rush of new immigration regulation and changing practice, it is easy for any of us to focus exclusively on individual client matters. It is entirely natural to feel sceptical about the willingness or usefulness of the Law Society in a campaigning role. But the interests of our clients, the rule of law, and the reputation of the profession require us to speak with clarity and authority on immigration questions.

Please communicate with the immigration law committee.

Mark Phillips is chair of the Law Society’s immigration law committee. He writes in a personal capacity