Sir Sadiq Khan has handed cash to a London council to spend on asylum seekers (Image: Getty)
Documents have revealed that Sir Sadiq Khan has provided £9,000 to a London council to be spent on water safety courses and soft play vouchers for asylum seekers. A transparency notice published on January 5 said that Lewisham Council, all of whose 54 councillors are Labour, apart from two Greens, was awarded a £40,000 grant from the Greater London Authority (GLA), the capital’s devolved local government authority headed by Sir Sadiq, for “asylum mental health initiatives” in October 2025.
The proposed activities, highlighted by the Centre for Migration Control, included £25,000 for “targeted outreach to people in dispersed asylum accommodation and additional casework” provided by Action for Refugees Lewisham (AFRIL) – a charity that provides “services to support vulnerable asylum seekers, migrants and refugees”, such as a food bank, advice centre, supplementary school and allotment.
Water safety courses and soft play vouchers at Lewisham leisure centres will also be provided, costing £9,000. The grant requirement is for the activities to be completed by end of May 2026, officials noted.
Sadiq Khan heads up the GLA (Image: Getty Images)
It comes after the Mayor of London confirmed in December that, as of June 2025, there were 17,161 people seeking asylum supported by the Home Office across London and in every one of the city’s boroughs.
When asked for his thoughts on the potential impact of Government proposals to make the UK’s asylum system more strict could have on London boroughs currently supporting Home Office-funded asylum accommodation by Conservative London Assembly Member Alessandro Georgiou in December, Sir Sadiq said: “London has a proud history of welcoming people from around the world, providing refuge to those seeking sanctuary and showing compassion for those in need.
“Importantly, people from across the world make a vital contribution to London’s economy and society, including those who have come to the UK seeking asylum.”
He added: “Councils discharge safeguarding duties to vulnerable people seeking asylum and would be impacted by these changes. They also play a role in supporting local advice systems, including immigration advice, and the new proposals could put these systems under greater strain.”
Sir Sadiq’s Deputy Mayor for Housing and Residential Development, Tom Copley, chaired the London Strategic Migration Partnership Board last year, and “facilitated a discussion about the proposed changes to asylum policy”.
The Mayor of London told Assembly Members: “At that meeting, the biggest concern raised by local authorities was the possibility of removing support from families with children, who the Home Office deem to have ‘no barrier to leaving the UK’.
“Councils are concerned these families could end up being supported by them – given these households may have no recourse to public funds – under their duty to protect children.
“I know the Government is keen to understand what the impacts of their proposals may be, including any unintended consequences.
“My officers will continue working with government, and with the relevant bodies through the London Strategic Migration Partnership, as well as with sanctuary seekers themselves, to help understand the impact of the proposed changes.”
Poland Defies Brussels: President Vetoes EU ‘Censorship’ Law in Digital Power Clash
Summary: Poland has thrown a spanner in Brussels’ flagship online rulebook after President Karol Nawrocki vetoed the bill designed to implement the EU’s Digital Services Act (DSA). The clash pits free-speech fears against EU enforcement, with fines and legal action now looming, and it matters in Britain because EU digital rules still spill over our borders even after Brexit.
What happened in Poland and why it matters
Poland has become the EU’s most high-profile holdout on digital regulation after President Karol Nawrocki vetoed legislation that would have implemented the Digital Services Act (DSA) in Polish law.
The DSA has applied across the EU since 2024, but Warsaw’s domestic “plumbing” for enforcement has now stalled, leaving Poland as an outlier and inviting a bruising fight with Brussels.
Nawrocki’s argument is blunt: he says the proposed law creates a route for officials to pressure platforms over what stays online.
“As president, I cannot sign a bill that effectively amounts to administrative censorship.”
“A situation in which a government official decides what is permitted on the Internet is reminiscent of the Ministry of Truth in Orwell’s 1984.”
Brussels’ leverage: enforcement powers, courts and fines
The European Commission can enforce parts of the DSA directly against the biggest platforms, including issuing major penalties.
But member states still need national systems to handle complaints, run a domestic digital services coordinator, and route appeals through local courts and regulators.
That is where Poland is now exposed: legal uncertainty at home, and a political headache abroad.
“While national governments retain the right to define illegal content, the DSA gives Brussels direct enforcement powers over the largest platforms, including the power to issue hefty fines.”
Supporters of faster implementation argue the delay mostly helps large tech firms, not ordinary users, because it slows down clear processes for challenges and oversight.
Disinformation, security and the ugly reality of online warfare
The veto lands as Poland faces sustained disinformation pressure, including narratives linked to Russia, according to digital governance analysts quoted in Polish coverage.
Critics of the veto warn that without a fully operational national coordinator, response times and accountability can weaken when deepfakes, scams, and coordinated manipulation hit.
Poland’s own authorities have already referred suspected TikTok deepfake material tied to “Polexit” narratives to the European Commission, showing that EU-level mechanisms are already being used even without the full national statute.
The UK angle: Brexit didn’t end EU rule “reach”
Britain is not bound by the EU’s DSA. That is the point of leaving. But the practical reality is messier: global platforms tend to standardise policies, and EU enforcement decisions can shape what UK users see.
For UK politics, this matters because online speech regulation is already a live argument here, with parties split between tougher controls and civil-liberties concerns.
Any UK-EU “reset” discussions on standards and cooperation will also be watched closely, because regulatory alignment has a habit of creeping in through the back door.
Free speech versus safety: the trade-off politicians dodge
Nawrocki is framing this as a free-speech veto, warning about state influence over online content moderation.
His opponents frame it as a safety and governance gap, arguing rules are needed to protect users, including children, and to create clearer appeal routes when content is removed or left up.
The uncomfortable truth is both sides are pointing at real risks: state overreach on one hand, and chaotic platform power and hostile disinformation on the other.
What happens next
Unless Poland’s government returns with a revised bill that can pass political and constitutional hurdles, the dispute drifts into legal confrontation with EU institutions.
That means Poland risks escalating costs, uncertainty for users and businesses, and a continuing political standoff dressed up as a moral crusade.
For British readers, it is a reminder: the EU never stops expanding its regulatory footprint, and even outside the club, we still feel the heat when Brussels turns up the dial on the internet.
LEAVE A RESPONSE
