Lewisham has become what is believed to be the first local authority in the UK to formally commit to withdrawing cooperation from Home Office immigration raids, after its Green administration passed a motion pledging to refuse assistance to enforcement operations wherever "legally possible".
The motion, titled "Building an anti-raids Sanctuary Corridor in and beyond Lewisham", was debated and passed at a full council meeting in the south-east London borough on the evening of Wednesday 22 July. It commits the council to a comprehensive review of its systems and processes with the aim of refusing to help the Home Office or Immigration Enforcement during raids, including through police cooperation.
The decision marks a significant escalation in the tension between local authorities and central government over immigration policy, coming as Labour has increased enforcement action to record levels since entering office. The move sets up a direct confrontation between a Green-run council and a Home Office that has described its relationship with Lewisham as "collaborative".
The motion was proposed by Green councillor Hau-Yu Tam, the Cabinet Member for Communities, Sanctuary and Healing, and seconded by Councillor Wellington Gill. It was backed by the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants (JCWI). Under its terms, the council will review data-sharing and service agreements to ensure a "firewall" exists between council services and immigration enforcement, and will not use council resources or public money for enforcement activity.
The motion argues there is no legal requirement compelling the council to assist. "There is no positive legal duty for local authority inspection or licensing teams to share data with the Home Office for the purposes of immigration enforcement," it states. "Doing so is incompatible with being a Borough of Sanctuary."
The council will also examine any contracts it holds with organisations that may help facilitate raids. The homelessness charity St Mungo's may fall within the scope of the review, after it was reported by the Guardian to have shared information with the Home Office about migrant rough sleepers in 2019.
As part of the plan, Lewisham intends to join the Green-led administration in neighbouring Lambeth and other councils to develop what the motion calls an "anti-raids sanctuary corridor", working with migrant and law centres, anti-raids networks, and faith and community groups. The motion also condemns the increase in immigration raids in the borough and what it describes as "regressive settlement and asset-seizure policies put forward by the Home Secretary".
Liam Shrivastava, the Green Mayor of Lewisham, said he was "incredibly proud" of the decision. "Immigration raids do not build safety in our communities; they spread fear and make it even harder for victims of modern slavery and trafficking to come forward and seek protection," he said. "Lewisham is now a true Borough of Sanctuary, in name and in practice."
Ahead of the vote, Mr Shrivastava told ITV the motion was part of the council's attempt to "protect our diverse communities from Labour's anti-migrant onslaught". He added: "We don't just want to be a borough of sanctuary in name but also in practice."
The Home Office defended its approach. "While all immigration enforcement visits are intelligence led, we make no apology for joining forces with local authorities to enable information sharing and ultimately fighting criminals who fuel immigration crime," a spokesperson said. "Since coming into power, we have increased Immigration Enforcement action to the highest level in British history." The department said its work had delivered an 83% rise in illegal working arrests and a 77% rise in raids between 1 July 2024 and 31 December 2025.
The vote follows what campaigners describe as an intensification of enforcement in the borough. Councillor Tam pointed in the chamber to a raid at a nail bar in Catford and a car wash in Brockley in January, attended by the then-Immigration Minister Mike Tapp and a Sky News crew. "Despite the resources, despite the spectacle, only two people were arrested and both [were] later released on bail," she said. "A few months later, a nail bar was raided again, and again a few days after."
Figures on the scale of local enforcement vary. Data obtained under freedom of information laws by the grassroots group Lewisham Anti-Raids indicates 177 raids took place in the SE13 area during 2025, while ITV has cited a figure of 261 raids across Lewisham last year. In neighbouring Lambeth, more than 1,000 raids have been reported over recent years. Nationally, the Home Office says more than 17,400 raids on businesses such as nail bars, car washes, barbers and takeaways led to over 12,300 arrests, supported by a £5m funding boost.
Griff Ferris, a spokesperson for the JCWI, said: "We're proud to have supported Lewisham with this historic vote, and we will support other councils to reject the Home Office's racist policies and raids." Green Party leader Zack Polanski said he was "proud of brave, compassionate Green councils in London working to create a corridor of sanctuary".
Lewisham declared itself a "borough of sanctuary" in 2021, a status it reaccredited in May 2024. Since 2018 it has resettled 47 refugee families and has previously declined to collaborate with the Home Office on rules allowing the deportation of rough sleepers. The Greens took control of the council from Labour at the elections on 7 May, with Mr Shrivastava winning the mayoralty with 40.4% of the vote against Labour Co-op's Amanda De Ryk. The Green administration now holds 40 of the 54 council seats, with Labour forming the opposition on 14.
Not all reaction has been supportive. The Spectator has argued that the Greens' mandate for such measures is thinner than the party believes, even in inner London. Questions also remain over the legal enforceability of the motion, given that the council has committed only to refusing assistance "wherever legally possible" — a caveat that leaves open where statutory duties may still compel cooperation.
The council has not yet confirmed a timetable for its review, nor which contracts and data-sharing arrangements will be examined first. The Metropolitan Police and St Mungo's have not yet publicly responded to the motion.