At least seven London councils are now refusing to co-operate with Home Office immigration raids, limiting help for enforcement even as the capital recorded more illegal working visits than any other part of Britain last year.

Newham last week became the first Labour-led local authority to take the stance, after Lewisham, Lambeth, Hackney, Waltham Forest, Southwark and Haringey over the summer. Councillors in the east London borough unanimously backed a motion that the town hall should only co-operate where there is a clear legal obligation, and should not actively assist operations with council staff, buildings or equipment.

That means they will limit, or in some cases block, data sharing with the Home Office for immigration enforcement and work with local activist groups on a so-called sanctuary corridor for migrants. Businesses in the capital were visited 2,715 times in 2025, up by more than 700 on the year before.

A Home Office spokesman said the visits are intelligence-led and made no apology for joining local authorities to enable information sharing and fighting criminals who fuel immigration crime. Green-led Lewisham was first to sign off the non-co-operation policy in July, with a review of data-sharing and service agreements and a pledge not to use resources or public money for immigration enforcement.

The five other boroughs, also with Green leaders, followed with help from the Migrant Champions Network, set up by councillors from Islington and Oxford in 2022. It drafted the motion London councils have used. Southwark leader James McAsh, who defected to the Greens in February, said he had been working for years to minimise co-operation.

Evening Standard reporting shows town halls choosing distance from national enforcement while raid numbers in London keep rising. Ministers still expect councils to help stop illegal working. The gap between local motions and Home Office operations is now plain across large parts of the capital.

London Councils Snub Home Office as Immigration Raids Climb

The relationship between London’s local councils and the Home Office is facing renewed scrutiny as immigration enforcement activity increases across the United Kingdom. The debate centres on whether local authorities should cooperate more closely with central government, particularly when immigration officers carry out operations targeting people suspected of working illegally or living in the country without the required permission.

For ministers, immigration enforcement is an important part of maintaining public confidence in the border system. For councils, the issue can involve a different set of responsibilities, including safeguarding vulnerable residents, supporting families and maintaining trust between local communities and public services.

The disagreement highlights a wider challenge for Britain’s immigration policy: how can the government enforce immigration rules while ensuring that people continue to seek help from essential local services without fear or confusion?

As enforcement operations attract greater attention, the question of cooperation between the Home Office and local authorities is becoming increasingly significant.

Seven Councils Take a Stand Against Immigration Raids

The dispute intensified after Newham became the latest London borough to limit its cooperation with Home Office immigration enforcement. It followed six other councils: Lewisham, Lambeth, Hackney, Waltham Forest, Southwark and Haringey. According to reporting published on October 13, 2026, at least seven London councils had adopted this position. <Link url={turn631283search5.url.uri} title=”Read the Evening Standard’s report on the councils’ decisions”/>.

The councils’ approaches vary in detail, but their common position is that local authorities should not actively assist immigration raids unless they have a clear legal obligation to do so. Measures include reviewing information-sharing arrangements and restricting the use of council staff, buildings and resources to support enforcement operations.

Lewisham became the first local authority to adopt the policy in July. Its Green-led administration said it wanted to establish an “anti-raids sanctuary corridor” by working with community organisations, legal advisers and migrant-support groups. Other councils subsequently followed its lead. <Link url={turn631283search4.url.uri} title=”Read the Guardian’s report on Lewisham’s policy”/>.

The decisions have created a political divide between councils that prioritise limiting their involvement in immigration enforcement and those who argue that local authorities should cooperate with the national government in applying immigration law.

For the Home Office, the central concern is whether restricted cooperation could make it harder to identify people suspected of working illegally or to organise enforcement operations. For the councils, the issue is whether sharing information or providing practical assistance could undermine residents’ confidence in local services.

Why Councils Are Refusing to Cooperate

Council leaders supporting the policies say residents should be able to access essential public services without assuming that information provided for one purpose will automatically be used for immigration enforcement.

Local authorities deal with housing, environmental health, education, social care and other services. Their records may contain information about where people live, where they work or which services they use.

Councils argue that sharing such information for immigration enforcement can discourage vulnerable residents from reporting unsafe housing, exploitation or abuse. If workers fear that contacting a council could expose their immigration status, they may be less willing to seek help when they need it.

Supporters of the sanctuary approach also argue that people who experience exploitation may be less likely to report criminal behaviour if they believe doing so could result in immigration action against themselves or their families.

However, limiting cooperation does not mean that councils can disregard every lawful request from the Home Office. The extent to which information can be withheld depends on the circumstances, the legal basis for the request and the responsibilities of the authority concerned.

The councils’ stated approach is generally to restrict voluntary assistance and cooperate where legally required, rather than claim an unlimited power to block national enforcement.

Home Office Raids Have Increased Significantly

The dispute is taking place against a backdrop of rising immigration enforcement activity.

The Home Office reported that between July 2024 and the end of December 2025, illegal-working raids increased by 77 per cent and arrests rose by 83 per cent compared with the period before the current government took office. More than 17,400 visits to businesses were conducted during that period, resulting in over 12,300 arrests, according to government figures published in January 2026. <Link url={turn631283search8.url.uri} title=”Read the Home Office’s enforcement figures”/>.

More recent figures indicate that activity continued to increase during the first half of 2026. Between January and June, Immigration Enforcement carried out 7,270 illegal-working visits and made 4,756 arrests. The Home Office said these figures represented increases of 31 per cent in visits and 20 per cent in arrests compared with the same period in 2025. <Link url={turn631283search2.url.uri} title=”Read the latest published enforcement statistics”/>.

These figures concern illegal-working enforcement across the UK, not solely immigration raids in London. They also measure different activities: a visit or arrest does not necessarily lead to a deportation, and the statistics should not be treated as a count of people ultimately removed from the country.

Nevertheless, they demonstrate the scale of the government’s enforcement programme and help explain why cooperation between central government and local authorities has become a contentious issue.

The Home Office has presented increased enforcement as part of its effort to tackle illegal employment, prevent businesses from exploiting workers and remove people who have no right to remain in Britain.

The London Assembly Pushes Back

The councils’ decisions have also prompted opposition from members of the London Assembly.

In September 2026, the Assembly approved a motion condemning the refusal of some boroughs to cooperate with Home Office Immigration Enforcement. The motion passed by seven votes to four. It called on London boroughs to work with the Home Office and urged the Mayor to raise concerns about the operational effects of the councils’ decisions. <Link url={turn631283search0.url.uri} title=”Read the London Assembly’s official statement”/>.

Supporters of the motion argued that immigration enforcement is a national responsibility and that local authorities should not create barriers that undermine the consistent application of the law.

They also emphasised the role enforcement can play in tackling human trafficking, organised crime and the exploitation of workers. From this perspective, restricting information-sharing could make it harder for officials to identify criminal activity or investigate businesses suspected of employing people illegally.

The councils’ supporters take a different view. They argue that protecting residents’ confidence in public services is itself a matter of public safety, particularly when people are experiencing exploitation or abuse.

The dispute therefore involves competing interpretations of how best to protect vulnerable people. One side emphasises cooperation with national enforcement authorities, while the other warns that excessive cooperation can deter people from seeking help.

What Does This Mean for Migrant Communities?

For migrants living in London, the debate can create uncertainty about what information local authorities may share and when they are required to cooperate with immigration officials.

People with secure immigration status may be concerned about how enforcement policies affect their families and communities. Those with unresolved applications or no current permission to remain may be particularly worried about the consequences of contacting public services.

At the same time, people who have experienced exploitation may need access to housing advice, healthcare, safeguarding services or legal assistance. Ensuring that they can report abuse is an important consideration for councils and other public bodies.

The policies adopted by the seven boroughs do not cancel national immigration law, prevent the Home Office from carrying out its own lawful operations or guarantee that residents will never face enforcement action.

Instead, they seek to change the extent to which council resources and information are used to assist immigration enforcement. The practical effects will depend on the wording of each council’s policy, the information involved and the legal obligations applying in individual cases.

Residents should not assume that all information held by a council is automatically confidential from the Home Office, nor that every request must be fulfilled. The legal position depends on the type of information and the circumstances in which it is requested.

Could the Dispute Spread Beyond London?

The developments in London could influence debates in other local authorities, particularly where councillors are concerned about the effects of immigration enforcement on community relations.

Sanctuary policies have previously focused on helping refugees and migrants access services, but the latest dispute centres more directly on whether councils should provide information or resources for immigration raids.

If more authorities adopt similar policies, the Home Office may face a patchwork of local arrangements. Some councils could cooperate closely with enforcement teams, while others restrict assistance to situations where the law requires it.

That could complicate operational planning, although it would not automatically prevent immigration officers from conducting lawful enforcement activities independently.

The consequences would depend on how much enforcement relies on local authority assistance, which information is available through other lawful channels and whether national guidance or legal challenges change the position.

For now, the developments reflect a broader disagreement over the relationship between central government and local democracy. Councils have responsibilities to their residents, but immigration control remains a national policy area governed by legislation and the powers of central government.

Finding a workable balance will require clarity about legal duties, information-sharing arrangements and the protections available to people who report exploitation.

Conclusion: A Growing Dispute Over Immigration Enforcement

London’s refusal-to-cooperate movement has expanded to at least seven boroughs as the Home Office continues to increase illegal-working enforcement activity.

The councils argue that restricting voluntary assistance can protect trust in local services and help vulnerable residents report abuse without unnecessary fear. Critics say the policies risk obstructing national immigration enforcement and making it more difficult to tackle illegal employment and exploitation.

The published statistics show that raids and arrests have increased, while the London Assembly’s response demonstrates that the councils’ decisions have become a significant political issue.

Yet the practical impact remains a separate question from the political arguments. The councils have not abolished immigration law, and their ability to refuse cooperation is limited by their legal responsibilities. Equally, the Home Office must operate within the law when requesting information or conducting enforcement operations.

The challenge now is to determine how national immigration rules can be enforced effectively while preserving residents’ ability to seek assistance from local authorities.

As more councils consider their approach, the debate is likely to focus on three questions: what cooperation the law requires, what information should be shared and how public authorities can protect people from exploitation without undermining legitimate enforcement.

The answers will shape not only the future of immigration raids in London, but also the wider relationship between central government, local councils and the communities they serve.