\
Reform UK has argued that the Resettlement Scheme – introduced by the Conservatives in 2021 – has forced councils to prioritise newly arrived migrants ahead of long-standing local residents when it comes to support and services.
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.
Councils also provide support registering with GPs and arranging Jobcentre appointments to help new arrivals access benefits.
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
“Reform UK in Lancashire is putting an end to a shameful Conservative policy which shoved British people to the back of the queue for housing and council services.”
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.”
LANCASHIRE QUITS REFUGEE SCHEME! Council Sparks National UPROAR With “BRITISH PEOPLE FIRST” BOMBSHELL!
A major political controversy has erupted in Lancashire after the county council officially agreed to withdraw from its role coordinating several government refugee resettlement programmes. The decision, backed by the Reform UK-controlled authority, has reignited Britain’s heated immigration debate and raised questions about how public money should be spent, who should receive support and whether local communities are being properly prioritised.
The announcement represents a significant development in Nigel Farage’s wider political agenda, with Reform UK arguing that British residents and vulnerable local families should receive greater attention when public resources are allocated. However, the decision has also attracted fierce criticism from opposition politicians and refugee support organisations, which warn that vulnerable people could face difficulties as existing support arrangements change.
On 3 September 2026, Lancashire County Council’s Cabinet formally agreed to end its role as the coordinating authority for refugee resettlement schemes across the county. The decision followed a review of the council’s involvement and the future administration of the programmes.
County Councillor Joshua Roberts, Cabinet Member for Rural Affairs, Environment and Communities, defended the decision, explaining that the authority had carefully considered the available options. The council argued that its responsibilities should be transferred to organisations and local authorities better placed to manage housing-related support.
The decision covers the administration of several refugee resettlement programmes, including arrangements for Afghan refugees and other vulnerable people arriving through official humanitarian routes.
Importantly, the decision does not mean that Lancashire has stopped providing all assistance to refugees, nor does it prevent the Government from continuing its national resettlement programmes. Instead, the council will transfer its coordinating responsibilities through a managed process, with the administration expected to end no later than 31 March 2027.
Nevertheless, the political message behind the decision has attracted considerable attention.
Reform UK has repeatedly argued that local authorities should prioritise residents who already live in their communities, particularly families struggling with housing shortages, financial difficulties and pressure on public services.
Supporters of the policy believe that councils must examine whether existing spending arrangements provide fair value for taxpayers. They argue that vulnerable British residents should not feel overlooked when local authorities make decisions about housing and support services.
However, opposition councillors have strongly challenged this position.
Progressive Lancashire representatives accused Reform of turning refugee policy into a political issue and questioned whether withdrawing from the programmes would actually save money. They argued that central government funding helps pay for services that can also benefit the wider population.
Another important concern involves the people already living in Lancashire who have arrived through legal refugee resettlement routes. These individuals include Afghan nationals who worked alongside British forces and people who fled persecution and conflict in other parts of the world.
Many have already established homes, found employment and started rebuilding their lives in Britain. Refugee organisations argue that removing administrative support could make integration more difficult, particularly for families requiring assistance with language, education and employment.
The issue became even more controversial when 19 councillors requested a formal review of the Cabinet decision. They questioned whether the decision-making process had followed the council’s procedures and whether sufficient information had been provided about the financial and social consequences.
On 11 September 2026, the Community, Cultural and Corporate Services Scrutiny Committee considered the challenge. Following discussions, the committee voted against referring the decision back to Cabinet for reconsideration. The original decision therefore remained in place.
The controversy also raises wider questions about the future of Britain’s immigration system. Across the country, local authorities are dealing with pressure on housing, healthcare, education and social services. Many residents want reassurance that public spending is being managed effectively and that local needs are not being overlooked.
At the same time, refugee resettlement programmes are designed to provide safe and legal routes for people who have been displaced by war, persecution and other serious dangers. These programmes are different from the process of dealing with people arriving irregularly across the English Channel.
This distinction matters because withdrawing from a coordinating role in refugee resettlement does not automatically end asylum accommodation, deportations or immigration enforcement in Lancashire.
The Government will now need to work with the Home Office and relevant local authorities to arrange the transfer of responsibilities. Ensuring that existing families continue receiving appropriate support will be an important part of the transition.
Ultimately, Lancashire’s decision has become an important political test for Reform UK. Supporters see it as an attempt to change local priorities and reconsider how public resources are distributed. Critics believe it risks undermining support for vulnerable refugees while potentially creating additional costs elsewhere.
In my opinion, the debate should focus on transparency, financial accountability and fairness. British families experiencing poverty and housing difficulties deserve meaningful support, while people who have legally resettled in the country should not suddenly be abandoned. These responsibilities are not necessarily incompatible.
The council must demonstrate that its decision produces genuine administrative improvements and that vulnerable residents will continue receiving the assistance they need.
Lancashire’s withdrawal is therefore more than a political headline. It represents a significant change in how refugee resettlement is coordinated locally and raises important questions about the balance between national humanitarian commitments and local government responsibilities. With the transition scheduled to be completed by March 2027, attention will now turn to the Home Office and the authorities taking over the work. The wider debate about immigration, public spending and the principle of putting local residents first is likely to continue attracting national attention.