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.

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.”

Lancashire Quits Refugee Resettlement Scheme as Council Puts Local Responsibilities First

Lancashire County Council has agreed to withdraw from its role coordinating refugee resettlement schemes across the county, triggering a fresh debate about local priorities, public spending and the responsibilities of councils towards vulnerable families arriving in Britain.

The decision was approved by the council’s cabinet on 3 September 2026, following a review of its involvement in administering Home Office resettlement programmes. The Reform UK-led authority says it wants to ensure that services are delivered efficiently, public money is used responsibly and administrative responsibilities sit with councils best placed to manage them.

The move has attracted national attention because immigration and refugee accommodation have become increasingly contentious issues in British politics. Supporters of the decision argue that local authorities must be able to reconsider how they allocate resources and whether they are the most appropriate organisations to coordinate national programmes. Critics warn that withdrawing from an established system could complicate support for refugee families and place additional pressure on neighbouring councils.

However, one distinction is crucial: Lancashire has not announced a blanket ban on refugees entering the county. Its decision concerns the administration and coordination of resettlement schemes, rather than ending the national programmes themselves. The council has also said that arrangements must be made to protect people already receiving support. <Cite refs={[“turn290285search0″,”turn290285search1″,”turn290285search4”]}/>

Why Lancashire has decided to withdraw

Lancashire County Council has acted as the coordinating authority for refugee resettlement programmes involving 15 local authorities across the county.

Its responsibilities have included coordinating administrative arrangements for several Home Office schemes, including programmes supporting eligible refugees from Afghanistan and other vulnerable groups. These schemes provide structured routes for people who qualify for resettlement in the United Kingdom.

Following an internal review, the council considered three options: ending all its administrative responsibilities through a managed transition, stopping responsibility for new arrivals while continuing to support existing families, or maintaining the current arrangements.

The cabinet selected the first option.

The council’s stated reasons included value for money, the effectiveness of service delivery, the forthcoming reorganisation of local government and the view that responsibility should sit with authorities that have the appropriate statutory housing functions. The cabinet also raised concerns about the fairness of operating a dedicated scheme that is not available to every Lancashire resident facing hardship.

The decision reflects the authority’s position that coordinating a national resettlement programme is not necessarily the best use of its administrative capacity.

County Councillor Joshua Roberts, the cabinet member for rural affairs, environment and communities, said the authority would work with the Home Office and partner organisations to ensure a safe and managed transition.

The council has indicated that its administrative responsibilities will end no later than 31 March 2027. <Cite refs={[“turn290285search1″,”turn290285search2″,”turn290285search8”]}/>

The “British people first” argument

The decision has become part of a wider political debate about whether councils should prioritise residents’ immediate needs when resources are under pressure.

Supporters of Lancashire’s approach argue that local authorities must consider housing shortages, demand for social care, pressure on public services and the cost of administering national programmes. They believe elected councillors should be able to examine existing arrangements and question whether their authority is the most suitable organisation to deliver them.

The argument has particular resonance in communities where residents are concerned about access to affordable housing, waiting times for services and the availability of support for vulnerable people.

For politicians advocating a “British people first” approach, the issue is also about accountability. They argue that councils should explain how their decisions affect local residents and demonstrate that spending arrangements deliver measurable benefits.

Yet the practical question is more complicated than choosing one group over another. Refugee resettlement programmes are generally funded through central government arrangements, and their administration can involve specific grants and reporting requirements. Ending a council’s coordinating role does not necessarily release an equivalent amount of money for other services.

The financial consequences depend on the funding arrangements, administrative costs and responsibilities that remain after the transition.

A responsible assessment must therefore distinguish between political priorities and the actual budgetary effects of the decision.

What happens to refugees already living in Lancashire?

The council has explicitly stated that its decision concerns the administration and coordination of the schemes, rather than the support available to refugees living in Lancashire.

That means the withdrawal should not be interpreted as an instruction for existing refugee families to leave the county.

People who have been resettled may have legal immigration status and may already be living, working, studying or receiving support in local communities. The council’s announcement does not remove their legal status or automatically cancel their access to services.

Local authorities continue to have applicable statutory duties towards residents, including eligible refugees. The details of the services provided depend on the individual’s circumstances and the relevant legislation.

The transition will require arrangements for transferring coordination responsibilities to other organisations or authorities. If that process is poorly managed, there could be disruption, duplicated administration or uncertainty for families and the organisations supporting them.

Lancashire has said it will work with the Home Office and partners to reduce those risks.

The central test will be whether the replacement arrangements can provide continuity while making responsibilities clear. Ending one administrative structure does not eliminate the need for effective coordination.

Could other councils face additional pressure?

Lancashire’s decision affects a system involving multiple local authorities, rather than a programme delivered by the county council alone.

Other councils may need to assume additional administrative responsibilities or agree a different model for coordinating support. The impact will depend on the final arrangements negotiated with the Home Office and participating authorities.

Preston City Council has expressed concern about the potential consequences. In September, its councillors backed a motion criticising Lancashire County Council’s withdrawal and highlighting the risk of added pressure on partner authorities.

Preston’s leadership argued that the transition could disrupt established services, weaken the continuity of local expertise and increase the workload for organisations supporting vulnerable families. It also stressed the importance of maintaining support for people who have fled persecution and conflict. <Cite refs={[“turn290285search6″,”turn290285search4”]}/>

These concerns illustrate why the decision is not simply an administrative change. Resettlement programmes depend on cooperation between central government, councils, housing providers, voluntary organisations and local communities.

If the coordinating role is transferred successfully, the new arrangements may provide a clearer division of responsibilities. If the transition creates gaps, however, local authorities could face additional costs and operational challenges.

The financial implications also deserve scrutiny. Lancashire may stop receiving certain reimbursements associated with its coordinating role, while other authorities could incur additional administrative expenses. The eventual balance will depend on the arrangements adopted.

Refugee resettlement is not the same as asylum accommodation

Another important distinction concerns the different systems used to manage people arriving in Britain.

Refugee resettlement schemes provide designated routes for eligible people who are selected for relocation under government programmes. Asylum seekers, by contrast, are people whose claims for protection are being considered or who are otherwise involved in the asylum process.

The two systems have different procedures and responsibilities.

Lancashire’s decision to withdraw from coordinating refugee resettlement schemes does not, by itself, end asylum accommodation arrangements or prevent the Home Office from continuing national resettlement programmes.

Nor does it mean that every refugee or asylum seeker in Lancashire is affected in the same way. The consequences depend on the particular scheme, the person’s legal circumstances and the services involved.

This distinction matters because public debate often treats refugee resettlement, asylum applications and irregular Channel crossings as though they were a single process. In reality, they involve different legal routes and administrative arrangements.

Understanding those differences is necessary to judge what the council’s decision will actually change.

What does the decision mean for local communities?

For residents, the most important questions concern the practical effects on housing, public services, council finances and community relations.

Local authorities need reliable information about the number of people requiring support, the funding available and the responsibilities assigned to each organisation. Residents also need clear explanations of how decisions are made and how the effects on local services are being managed.

Councils are entitled to review whether they are fulfilling their responsibilities efficiently. But a change in administration should be assessed against its real-world consequences rather than its political messaging alone.

If the new arrangements reduce duplication and place responsibilities with organisations better equipped to deliver them, the transition could provide administrative benefits. If it simply shifts work and costs to other authorities, the overall system may become more complicated.

The same principle applies to public spending. Any claimed savings should be measured against the full costs of the new arrangements, including the resources required by partner councils and the Home Office.

Transparency will be particularly important during the transition period. Clear reporting on funding, service continuity and responsibility for individual cases would help residents understand whether the new system is working as intended.

A wider test for Reform UK-led councils

The decision also places Lancashire’s Reform UK administration under scrutiny.

Reform has made immigration control and the prioritisation of domestic concerns important parts of its political platform. With control of the county council, its representatives have an opportunity to demonstrate how those principles translate into administrative decisions.

Supporters may view the withdrawal as evidence that the council is prepared to reconsider arrangements inherited from previous administrations. Critics may question whether the move will deliver meaningful benefits if the national resettlement system continues and responsibilities are simply transferred elsewhere.

Both arguments can be tested against the eventual results.

The relevant measures include whether administrative costs change, whether local services are protected, whether partner councils receive adequate support and whether refugee families experience disruption. Those outcomes will provide a more useful assessment than slogans alone.

The road ahead

Lancashire County Council’s decision marks a change in how refugee resettlement is coordinated across the county, but it does not amount to the end of refugee resettlement in Lancashire.

The council intends to withdraw from its administrative role through a managed process, with the transition due to be completed by 31 March 2027 at the latest. The Home Office and partner authorities will need to establish arrangements for handling existing and future cases.

The political debate over local priorities is likely to continue. Residents will expect councils to manage resources responsibly, explain their decisions and protect essential services. At the same time, authorities must fulfil their legal duties towards people who live in their areas, including refugees who have settled lawfully.

Ultimately, the success of Lancashire’s decision will depend on what happens next. If the change creates a more effective system without interrupting support, the council will be able to point to practical results. If it shifts administrative burdens onto other authorities or creates uncertainty for vulnerable families, those consequences will also need to be acknowledged.

The central issue is not whether a council can reconsider its role. It is whether the new arrangements will deliver the efficiency, fairness and continuity that residents and the people affected by the schemes have a right to expect.