The Green Party leadership of Lewisham Borough Council has announced that it will no longer be cooperating with the Home Office in providing information that might lead to raids on businesses suspected of breaking immigration rules. Through work on areas such as food hygiene and trading standards, local authorities often have far better data than central government on which businesses may be employing workers illegally. Refusing to share this data from the councils, the Lewisham Greens’ plan is supposedly a first step in creating “boroughs of sanctuary” across London.

At first glance, this all looks very American. “Sanctuary cities” have proliferated across the US in municipalities under the control of the Democrats, and there have already been some UK equivalents in places such as Liverpool. This reflects attitudes that are common among American progressives, who are often openly dismissive of the idea that illegal immigration is a problem at all. This has not yet been widely adopted on the British Left, which continues at least to pay lip service to the idea that illegal immigration is a criminal offense and should be stopped.

In the US, sanctuary cities have often come into conflict with federal agencies and their state governments — but it is the latter which wield the real authority. During attempted crackdowns, the 10th Amendment has often seen the courts uphold the principle that all powers not explicitly delegated to the federal government are retained by locally elected representatives. But in Britain, no such legal principle exists, and local governments such as those of London boroughs are creatures of Parliament.

As such, the Greens’ sanctuary borough plan is only really a threat to the Home Office’s immigration enforcement insofar as Westminster is willing to tolerate it. There is no overarching legal obligation for local authorities to cooperate with the agencies of central government. However, the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 is clear that local authorities have a requirement to hand over certain details when requested, relating to the whereabouts of people who they suspect are here illegally. This is also true regarding businesses that may be employing people without permission to work in the UK.

Should a local authority fail to comply, it will then become incumbent upon the Home Office to seek judicial remedies. The Government can ultimately suspend the local authority and take control directly. The question is whether Andy Burnham will be minded to do so, given that so many of his backbenchers, party members and target voters are likely to be sympathetic to the Greens’ approach. This is the same consideration that is at the heart of Labour’s inability to get to grips with immigration more broadly.

There is evidence of a strong correlation between businesses that employ illegal workers and other forms of exploitation and illegality. As such, the Green Party is now setting itself up as the defender of some of the most exploitative and non-compliant businesses in London. One can regard this either as evidence that Left-wing concerns about human trafficking and modern slavery were only ever an attempt to prevent deportations, or that the Greens are incapable of thinking through the second-order implications of their ideas. Confronting them will be an early challenge for the next home secretary, whoever that turns out to be.

---

Chris Bayliss is an independent consultant who works on energy infrastructure in the Middle East.

baylissbaghdad

---