A growing number of London councils are refusing to co-operate with Home Office raids.
Newham last week became the first Labour-led local authority to adopt the position, following Lewisham, Lambeth, Hackney, Waltham Forest, Southwark and Haringey councils over the summer.
It means that they will limit, or in some cases block, data sharing with the Home Office for immigration enforcement purposes and work with local activist groups to create a “sanctuary corridor” for migrants.
Newham Council has vowed to pull resources from immigration raids unless legally required
Getty Images
A Home Office spokesman said that, while the visits are intelligence led, they make "no apology" for joining local authorities to enable information sharing and "fighting criminals who fuel immigration crime".
Green-led Lewisham was the first to sign off the non co-operation policy. In July, it passed its motion that included a review of the local authority data-sharing and service agreements and pledged not to use resources or public money for immigration enforcement.
The five other boroughs, who also have Green leaders, followed shortly after with help from the Migrant Champions Network, which was set up by councillors from Islington and Oxford in 2022 to push back against hostile environment policies.
It drafted the motion that London councils have used to pass the move.
Southwark leader James McAsh, who defected to the Greens in February, said he had been working for a number of years to minimise co-operation with the Home Office.
Immigration enforcement officers take part in a raid in north west London
AFP/Getty
He told the Standard he “fought really hard to get the Home Office out of the council” when a Labour backbencher in Southwark.
He said: “At the time, there was a system called embedded immigration officers, where the council paid the salary of a Home Office member of staff who worked in here, and the line was: ‘this is great for the migrants because it they have access to Home Office database and it speeds things up, and it's great for the council because we can get their costs off our books’.
“And that was a load of nonsense. We found one example where someone came in for support regarding their disability, their immigration status was flagged, and this immigration officer printed off a notice for removal, there and there.
“Thankfully, that person challenged it with legal support and it turned out to be illegal and it was removed. But that's very much really a key part of my politics.
“I don't believe migration is a crime. I don't believe migrants should be treated like criminals, and that's something that I've been pushing for for some time.”
But the London Assembly last month passed its own motion condemning the stance by some councils.
It stated: “Immigration enforcement is a national responsibility that enforces national border security, tackling human trafficking and protecting vulnerable people from exploitation.
“Local authorities should not obstruct actions by immigration enforcement operations or build political barriers that undermine the safety of the public or the rule of law.”
Reform UK London Assembly member Keith Prince, who proposed the motion, said: "Immigration enforcement is a national responsibility and effective cooperation between local authorities and the Home Office is required to ensure the law is applied consistently and vulnerable people are protected, rather than adopting ridiculous activist-driven policies.
“Where a local authority changes its approach to working with the Home Office, it is reasonable to understand what operational impact that may have and to ensure responsibilities remain clear.”