London Assembly Condemns Green Councils Home Office Raid Stance Waltham Forest 2026

Key Points

• Reform Motion: Reform UK London Assembly Member and Havering Council leader Keith Prince tabled a motion condemning six London councils for refusing to assist Home Office immigration enforcement teams.
• Six Councils Opt Out: Following Lewisham Council’s decision in July, Hackney, Haringey, Lambeth, Southwark, and Waltham Forest councils—all controlled by the Green Party—adopted policies ending cooperation with immigration searches.
• Waltham Forest Response: Waltham Forest Council leader Paul Perkins defended the authority’s “borough of sanctuary” status, stating the council will not be “complicit in creating a hostile environment.”
• Conservative Criticism: Conservative London Assembly Member Emma Best argued that non-cooperation creates “corridors to exploit” individuals living in the UK illegally.
• Home Office Enforcement Data: The Home Office stated it makes “no apology” for its operations, citing an 83 per cent rise in illegal working arrests and a 77 per cent increase in raids between July 1, 2024, and December 31, 2025.
• Rights Group Support: The Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants backed the councils’ position, asserting that enforcement raids spread fear and division within local communities.

Waltham Forest (East London Times) September 15, 2026 – A political rift has erupted across London local government following a formal condemnation of six capital councils that have refused to assist Home Office immigration enforcement teams with local raids and business searches.

Why Has the London Assembly Motion Sparked Debate Over Local Council Cooperation?

The clash intensified at a London Assembly meeting after Reform UK assembly member Keith Prince, who also serves as the leader of Havering Council, tabled a motion urging all local authorities to maintain active cooperation with the Home Office. Prince condemned the non-cooperation stance, describing anti-raid policies as “ridiculous” and “activist-driven.”

He argued that immigration enforcement remains a fundamental national responsibility and that consistent collaboration between local authorities, the Metropolitan Police, and central government is essential to protect vulnerable individuals from trafficking and workplace exploitation.

Immigration officers regularly conduct intelligence-led operations alongside local police and authority staff to inspect businesses and restaurants suspected of employing individuals working without legal status or in breach of visa conditions.

How Have Green Party Councils Justified Their Non-Cooperation Stance?

The movement to halt local authority involvement in Home Office enforcement began in July, when Lewisham Council announced it would no longer support immigration enforcement teams conducting searches within the borough. Since that decision, five other London councils—Hackney, Haringey, Lambeth, Southwark, and Waltham Forest—have implemented identical policies. All six local authorities are currently controlled by the Green Party.

Defending his authority’s position, Waltham Forest Council leader Paul Perkins stated that the administration remains proud of its status as a “borough of sanctuary,” a policy originally adopted under the previous Labour administration to celebrate and support migrants, refugees, and asylum seekers.

Perkins confirmed that the council is actively reviewing its statutory duties and current framework of cooperation with the Home Office. He emphasized that the administration is committed to taking all possible steps to protect vulnerable residents and ensure the local authority does not become complicit in fostering a hostile environment for migrants.

Perkins also expressed disappointment that only Green Party and Liberal Democrat members on the London Assembly voted against the motion condemning the councils’ actions.

What Are the Key Arguments Raised by Opposition Figures and Advocacy Groups?

Opposition to the non-cooperation policy was led during the assembly debate by Waltham Forest Conservatives leader Emma Best, who also serves as a London Assembly member. Best argued that illegal immigration poses a systemic challenge for every section of the community, regardless of how long residents have lived in the area. She warned that by withholding assistance from enforcement agencies, Green-led councils have effectively created unpoliced corridors that allow human traffickers and exploitative employers to take advantage of undocumented workers.

Conversely, migrant rights organizations have welcomed the stance taken by the six councils. The Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants strongly criticized enforcement tactics, maintaining that workplace raids persecute migrants, disrupt community cohesion, and generate widespread fear among vulnerable populations.

A spokesperson for the Home Office defended the department’s record, stating that enforcement visits are strictly intelligence-led and targeted at dismantling criminal networks that profit from illegal immigration. The department reported significant increases in operational activity, noting an 83 per cent rise in illegal working arrests alongside a 77 per cent increase in raids recorded between July 1, 2024, and December 31, 2025.

Background of the Non-Cooperation Policy in London Councils

The concept of the “City of Sanctuary” movement has increasingly influenced local authority policy across the United Kingdom over the past decade. Designed to foster welcoming environments for asylum seekers and refugees, sanctuary policies often include commitments to safeguard access to public services regardless of immigration status.

In London, tensions between municipal authorities and central immigration officials escalated following the implementation of strict enforcement measures aimed at curbing illegal employment in high-risk sectors, including hospitality, construction, and retail. Under statutory frameworks, local authorities frequently share intelligence or provide operational support during multi-agency visits involving the Metropolitan Police Service and Home Office Immigration Enforcement units.

Lewisham Council’s decision to formally withdraw operational assistance marked a operational shift in municipal participation. The decision created a precedent rapidly mirrored across Green-controlled boroughs in East and South London, formalizing a split between national border enforcement mandates and local municipal governance strategies.

Prediction: How This Development Could Affect Local Businesses, Migrant Communities, and Municipal Governance

The escalating dispute between the London Assembly, central government, and non-cooperating borough councils is expected to produce direct operational, legal, and social consequences for several key stakeholders across the capital:

Impact on Migrant Communities and Vulnerable Workers

For migrant communities, the non-cooperation stance by local councils may provide a heightened sense of safety when accessing local authority services, such as housing advice, social care, and emergency support. However, because Home Office immigration officers retain independent statutory powers to conduct raids without local council consent, individuals working without legal status remain subject to federal enforcement action. Concerns persist among advocacy groups that intelligence-led visits by national agents may become more heavy-handed if local authority oversight and liaison officers are absent.

Impact on Local Businesses and Employers

Local business owners—particularly within the hospitality, retail, and service sectors—face an increasingly complex compliance landscape. While local council inspectors may no longer assist in joint immigration sweeps, Home Office operations inside these boroughs will continue independently. Business owners found employing workers without valid visa documentation still face severe civil penalties of up to £60,000 per illegal worker, along with potential criminal prosecution, irrespective of the host council’s political stance.

Impact on Inter-Governmental Legal Dynamics

The standoff is likely to prompt legal challenges or legislative reviews regarding the boundary between national immigration statutes and local council autonomy. If the Home Office determines that municipal non-cooperation hinders national security or statutory enforcement, central government may seek to introduce legislative measures compelling local authorities to assist federal agencies, potentially altering the balance of power between Westminster and London local government.