Under the current system, refugees arriving through the scheme can receive council-backed assistance including immediate cash payments, welcome packs and help with household bills.

Reform UK says homeless veterans and struggling locals are too often left to fend for themselves without the same level of support.

The party’s Home Affairs spokesman Zia Yusuf said: “These schemes have only served to prioritise recent arrivals and foreign nationals ahead of the British public.

Lancashire County Council is poised to become the first local authority in Britain to quit the Government’s refugee resettlement programme

Joshua Roberts, Lancashire County Council’s cabinet member for communities, said the move would put local Lancastrians “at the front of the queue”.

Mr Roberts also called on Labour to stop placing refugees in the county and instead direct public money towards vulnerable residents and veterans who he said had been “deprioritised by successive Labour and Conservative governments for far too long”.

The proposal will go before the council’s Cabinet this summer for formal approval.

Zia Yusuf said the schemes ‘prioritise recent arrivals and foreign nationals ahead of the British public’

The withdrawal would cover both the UK Resettlement Scheme and the Afghan Resettlement Programme – although support for Ukrainian refugees would remain in place.

The move is expected to pile pressure on other Reform UK-controlled councils to consider similar withdrawals.

It comes as Mr Farage’s party also unveiled plans to place migrant detention centres in Green-controlled council areas if it wins the next General Election.

Zack Polanski’s Greens are expected to rival Reform UK as one of the biggest winners in Thursday’s local elections, with some polls suggesting both parties could secure more than 1,000 council seats.

The withdrawal covers both the UK Resettlement Scheme and the Afghan Resettlement Programme

The Greens have previously condemned Reform UK’s proposed mass deportation policy – dubbed Operation Restoring Justice -describing it as “ill-thought-out,” “cruel,” and “abhorrent”.

Meanwhile, Mr Yusuf said Reform UK would not place detention centres in areas represented by Reform MPs or councils.

He told The Telegraph: “Even though illegal migrants will not be allowed to leave the sites, we are committing to not placing these detention sites in areas with a Reform MP or where Reform controls the council.

“Given the Green Party advocates for open borders and for an infinite number of undocumented men to come here, we will prioritise Green constituencies and Green-controlled councils to locate these detention centres.”

He added: “This is the fairest approach to ensuring democratic consent for all aspects of our mass deportation programme.”

The proposal has already generated significant debate among local authorities, refugee charities, and policy experts. Supporters of the withdrawal argue that local councils are facing unprecedented financial pressures and should be given greater flexibility to decide how limited public resources are allocated. They contend that local governments must prioritize residents who have lived and paid taxes in their communities for many years, particularly those experiencing homelessness, unemployment, or financial hardship.

Opponents, however, argue that the UK’s refugee resettlement programmes are designed to provide protection to people who have fled war, persecution, and humanitarian crises through legal routes established by the government. They emphasize that local councils receive central government funding to help cover many of the costs associated with refugee resettlement, and they caution that withdrawing from the schemes could leave vulnerable families with fewer options for rebuilding their lives safely in the United Kingdom.

Policy analysts note that the debate reflects a broader national discussion about immigration, public spending, and the responsibilities of local government. Rising demand for housing, healthcare, education, and social care has placed increasing pressure on councils across England, many of which have warned that their budgets are becoming unsustainable. As a result, questions over how public resources should be distributed have become an increasingly prominent issue in both local and national politics.

If Lancashire proceeds with the proposal, it could become a test case for other local authorities considering similar measures. Councils controlled by different political parties may reach different conclusions depending on local financial conditions, housing availability, and public opinion within their communities. Any wider movement away from the resettlement schemes could prompt renewed debate in Parliament about whether the existing funding model adequately supports councils that participate in refugee programmes.

The proposal is also likely to attract legal and political scrutiny. While local authorities have discretion over certain aspects of service delivery, refugee resettlement programmes operate within a national framework established by the UK Government. Any significant reduction in council participation could require further discussions between local authorities and central government regarding future responsibilities, funding arrangements, and the distribution of refugees across the country.

Beyond the immediate policy implications, the issue highlights the growing importance of immigration as a defining political topic in Britain. Political parties continue to offer sharply different approaches to border control, asylum policy, and refugee resettlement, reflecting wider public debates about national security, humanitarian obligations, economic pressures, and social integration. As future elections approach, these competing visions are expected to remain central to political campaigns and public discussion.

Ultimately, the Cabinet’s decision on the proposal will be closely watched not only in Lancashire but across the United Kingdom. Whether the council chooses to withdraw from the resettlement programmes or maintain its participation, the outcome is likely to influence broader discussions about the balance between supporting vulnerable refugees, meeting the needs of local residents, and ensuring that public resources are managed effectively during a period of continued economic and fiscal pressure.