The topic of immigration continues to play a leading part in UK politics. On one reading, the tough line on immigration taken by the current government through its home secretary has been a deciding factor in the manoeuvres to replace the prime minister. The Labour immigration measures were either not enough for those who moved to Reform in the recent local elections, or too much for those who moved to Green, leaving the government, and so the prime minister, shorn of support. Which way to turn?
Our government is not alone in its immigration concerns. As I wrote last year, 9 European countries, representing a mix of political colours, including Denmark, Italy, Poland, Austria and the Baltics, wrote an open letter to the Council of Europe about the interpretation of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) in respect of immigration, calling for another look at how the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has developed interpretation of its clauses. The UK government supported this move.
As the Gazette reported, this letter culminated last week in a so-called ‘modernisation’ of the interpretation of the ECHR as it concerns immigration. A political declaration on the ECHR and migration was adopted unanimously by Council of Europe countries.
Although the declaration piously continues to declare its members’ support for the ECHR, there is no doubt that it represents an attempt by the governments to pressure the ECtHR to decide in a certain direction in the future, particularly in cases involving Article 3 (freedom from torture) and Article 8 (right to family life).
The Law Society president expressed concern that the declaration will be used by national governments to put political pressure on courts, and to weaken the tools used to challenge them.
‘Modernisation’ – the term used by our own attorney general to describe the outcome – is an interesting word in this context. The Council of Bars and Law Societies (CCBE), in its response to the initiative, reminded governments of the background in which the ECHR was originally drafted, when migration was much worse.
At the time when the ECHR was being conceived, 12 million largely destitute ethnic Germans were converging on the new Federal Republic of Germany. Later, 900,000 migrants arrived in France in a few months in 1962, following the independence of Algeria. Much more recently in Europe, in 2015, migration pressure was significantly greater than now, as a result of the Syrian exodus, when 890,000 refugees were received in Germany alone, and over 1.2 million asylum applications were made in the EU. The CCBE highlights that the number of applications for asylum in the EU has fallen each month since 2023, including by 19% in November 2025 in comparison with November 2024.
The Law Society president pointed out that the evidence shows that it is very rare for national governments, and especially the UK, to lose human rights cases concerning migration. The CCBE describes the comparatively small scale of immigration and migration cases in the court’s case load. These cases represented about 1.5% of those pending before the court on 1 January 2026, and over the last 10 years have generated only 300 judgments finding violations out of a total of over 7,000 applications. The CCBE rightly concludes that, important though the ECtHR and the ECHR undoubtedly are, neither can be regarded as central to the causes, or control or consequences of migration and immigration in Europe over the last decade, or now.
The CCBE response, to which the Law Society made contributions, does other things, too. For instance, the CCBE points out how in the preparatory work for the declaration, case law was cited in a one-sided and misleading way.
And the CCBE also welcomes the section of the new declaration on communication and dialogue:
‘It is important to maintain open, informed and constructive dialogue and communication on the functioning of the Convention system in a manner that strengthens public confidence in the protection of human rights, upholds the rule of law, and enhances trust in the Convention framework as a whole.’
Lawyers are not mentioned, but the CCBE hopes that we will be included in this dialogue. That is because we are among the few to put the immigration debate into context, as evidenced by the facts and figures highlighted here, and by the Law Society’s own statements.
We all know that immigration will remain a hot-button issue, dividing the electorate for years to come. Different options are available, but they should be founded on proper facts and reliable figures.
The work that the Law Society undertakes, through the CCBE and elsewhere, to focus the minds of international bodies on the true background is invaluable to the profession and beyond, not only in migration as here, but in other areas like professional enablement, SLAPPs, anti-money laundering and more.
Jonathan Goldsmith is Law Society Council member for EU & International, chair of the Law Society’s Policy & Regulatory Affairs Committee and a member of its board. All views expressed are personal and are not made in his capacity as a Law Society Council member, nor on behalf of the Law Society
No comments yet