Reform council makes history by axing government refugee scheme ‘put British people first’ . hyn
Reform UK says it will withdraw a council it controls from the UK’s refugee resettlement scheme (Image: Getty)
Reform UK is poised to make history by withdrawing a council it controls from the government’s refugee resettlement scheme, declaring the move will ensure British people are no longer pushed to the back of the queue.
Lancashire County Council — controlled by Nigel Farage‘s insurgent party since last May, when Reform won 53 of 84 seats to form a majority — has moved to exit the UK Resettlement Scheme and the Afghan Resettlement Programme, though provisions for Ukrainian refugees are being kept on.
The scheme was launched by the Conservative government in 2021 to give newly-arrived legal refugees access to homes, medical care, schooling and work support. Reform argues it has compelled the council to prioritise newcomers over people who have lived in the area for years.
The party says public money has gone on arrival cash payments, culturally specific gift hampers, energy bill assistance, and help signing up with doctors and securing benefits — while homeless veterans and other vulnerable locals have been left largely without equivalent support.
Get the day’s biggest headlines in UK and World news and more
Invalid email
You agree you are 18 or over. We use your sign-up to provide content in ways you’ve consented to and to improve our understanding of you. This may include adverts from us and third parties based on our knowledge of you. You can unsubscribe at any time. More Info.
Why is Reform pulling out of the refugee scheme?
According to the Daily Mail, Reform’s Home Affairs spokesman Zia Yusuf said: “These schemes have only served to prioritise recent arrivals and foreign nationals ahead of the British public.
“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, the council’s cabinet member for communities, said the move was about “fairness” and placing local Lancastrians “at the front of the queue.”
He added: “We are calling on the Labour Government to stop placing refugees in Lancashire and instead redirect public funds to better support our vulnerable residents and veterans.
“These people have been deprioritised by successive Labour and Conservative governments for far too long.”
What happens next with the Lancashire refugee decision?
The plan is due to go to the council’s Cabinet for approval later this summer. Reform sources indicate other councils under the party’s control are lining up to follow.
Mr Yusuf added that on 7 May — local election day — “it is only Reform UK that is standing to ensure that councils across England put British people first.”
Reform Council Makes History by Axing Government Refugee Scheme: “Put British People First”
Lancashire County Council has taken a significant step in the increasingly contentious debate over Britain’s refugee and immigration policies after deciding to withdraw from its role as the coordinating authority for government refugee resettlement schemes across the county.
The decision, taken by the council’s cabinet on September 3, 2026, means Lancashire County Council will no longer administer the schemes on behalf of councils across the county. The move has attracted considerable political attention because the authority is controlled by Reform UK and because its supporters have framed the decision around the principle of putting local residents and public services first.
However, the practical implications are more specific than the political headline might suggest. The council is withdrawing from its administrative and coordinating role rather than ending refugee resettlement in Lancashire altogether. Existing arrangements are due to be transferred through a managed process, with the council’s administrative responsibilities ending no later than March 31, 2027.
That distinction is important because the decision does not mean that refugees already living in Lancashire will automatically lose support, nor does it prevent the Government from continuing its national resettlement programmes.
A major decision by a Reform-controlled council
The political significance of the decision comes partly from the fact that Lancashire is controlled by Reform UK. The party won a substantial majority on the county council, taking 53 of the 84 seats. Reform has subsequently made immigration, public spending and the allocation of local resources important parts of its political agenda.
During the debate over refugee resettlement, Reform representatives argued that councils should concentrate their limited resources on vulnerable people already living in their communities. Supporters of the decision have also raised concerns about pressure on housing, public services and council administration.
The council itself, however, has presented the decision in more administrative terms. Its official announcement says the cabinet reviewed the council’s involvement in administering refugee resettlement schemes and concluded that Lancashire should withdraw from its coordinating role.
Crucially, the council noted that there is no statutory requirement for Lancashire County Council to act as the coordinating authority for these schemes. The decision therefore concerns the council’s voluntary administrative role rather than a legal obligation imposed upon it.
This distinction has allowed the Reform administration to argue that it is exercising local discretion over how council resources are used.
What exactly has Lancashire decided?
Lancashire currently acts as a coordinating authority for refugee resettlement arrangements across the county. Under the new approach, the council will notify the Home Office of its intention to cease administering the schemes and will work with government officials and other partners to arrange a transition.
The council has explicitly stated that coordination responsibilities for existing and new cases will be transferred through a managed process.
The administration is therefore not simply shutting the door overnight. Instead, it is seeking to transfer responsibility elsewhere while gradually ending its own involvement. According to the council, the process is intended to provide clarity for organisations involved and protect people who are already receiving support.
The official timetable gives the transition a firm deadline: administrative responsibilities are expected to end by March 31, 2027.
This means the headline language surrounding the announcement should not be interpreted as meaning that Lancashire has banned refugees from entering the county. Other authorities and organisations may continue to participate in government resettlement arrangements.
Why Reform says the move matters
For Reform UK, the decision represents an opportunity to demonstrate how the party intends to use local government power.
Reform politicians have argued that councils should focus their attention on people already living in their communities, particularly vulnerable residents, pensioners, families requiring support and people facing difficulties accessing essential services.
Earlier proposals connected to the decision included arguments that resources associated with refugee resettlement could instead be directed towards local priorities and veterans. Reform representatives have also argued that national government should bear responsibility for national immigration policies rather than expecting local authorities to carry the administrative burden.
That argument has become increasingly important as immigration remains one of the most politically sensitive issues in Britain.
The Government has simultaneously been attempting to reform the asylum system while maintaining safe and legal routes for refugees. In June 2026, Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood announced plans for new community sponsorship, study and work routes for recognised refugees. The first arrivals through some of these new routes are expected from 2027.
The Lancashire decision therefore comes at a moment when the national system itself is changing.
The Government’s wider refugee strategy
The Government has argued that Britain should continue offering protection to people fleeing war and persecution while creating a more controlled immigration and asylum system.
Under the Government’s plans, community organisations will be able to sponsor recognised refugees, while universities and employers will have roles in new study and employment routes. The Government says these programmes are intended to provide safe and legal alternatives to dangerous journeys.
At the same time, the asylum system has been undergoing substantial reforms.
Since March 2026, refugee protection for adults claiming asylum has moved towards a temporary model subject to review every 30 months. The Government says protection will be renewed for people who continue to face danger, while those whose home countries are considered safe may be expected to return.
This demonstrates that the national debate is not simply about whether Britain should accept refugees or reject them. It also concerns how refugees are selected, where they are settled, how long protection lasts, who pays for support and how responsibilities are divided between central and local government.
Critics challenge the political message
The Lancashire decision has also attracted criticism.
Opponents have argued that withdrawing from the coordinating role does not necessarily reduce the number of refugees living in Lancashire. Instead, responsibility may simply move from Lancashire County Council to another authority or organisation.
Critics have also questioned whether the decision could affect funding arrangements and whether it represents an efficient use of public resources. Earlier reporting on the proposal highlighted disagreement over the financial consequences and whether withdrawal would actually produce savings for the council.
The council itself has acknowledged that a transition will be necessary precisely because the Government’s schemes will not simply disappear when Lancashire stops coordinating them.
The decision was also subject to scrutiny. A group of councillors requested that the cabinet decision be reconsidered, raising concerns about matters including proportionality, best value, equality, human rights and sustainability. However, the scrutiny committee subsequently voted not to refer the decision back to the cabinet, allowing the original decision to proceed subject to the managed transition.
A wider debate about local priorities
At the heart of the controversy is a broader question: how should local councils balance national responsibilities with local priorities?
Immigration and refugee resettlement are primarily national policy issues. The Government determines immigration rules, asylum procedures and the overall structure of resettlement programmes.
Yet councils are often responsible for delivering services that directly affect communities. Housing, education, social care, public health and community integration can all intersect with migration policy.
This creates a difficult division of responsibility.
Supporters of Lancashire’s decision argue that councils should have greater freedom to determine which services they prioritise. Critics counter that refugee resettlement is a national responsibility and that local authorities should work within national frameworks rather than withdrawing from them.
The disagreement is therefore not merely about refugees. It is also about the relationship between Westminster and local government.
What happens next?
Lancashire’s withdrawal will now require careful implementation.
The council says it will work with the Home Office and relevant partners to establish alternative arrangements. The transition must take account of both existing refugees and future cases, ensuring that responsibility does not disappear during the handover.
The wider national picture will also continue to evolve.
The Government is preparing new safe and legal routes, while Parliament is considering broader immigration and asylum legislation. The Immigration and Asylum Bill includes reforms involving refugee protection, asylum support, appeals and modern slavery provisions.
As these reforms develop, other councils may face similar questions about their roles in implementing national immigration policies.
Lancashire’s decision could therefore become an important case study in the relationship between local political mandates and national government programmes.
Conclusion
Lancashire County Council’s decision to withdraw from coordinating refugee resettlement schemes marks a notable moment in Britain’s continuing debate over immigration, public services and local government responsibility.
The Reform-controlled authority has presented the move as a way of refocusing council attention on Lancashire residents and frontline services. Critics argue that the decision may simply transfer administrative responsibility elsewhere and question its financial and practical consequences.
The facts are clear on one central point: Lancashire is ending its role as the coordinating authority, not ending refugee resettlement across the county. Existing and new cases are expected to be transferred through a managed process, with the council’s administrative responsibilities ending by March 31, 2027.
The significance of the decision will ultimately depend on what happens after the transition.
If another organisation takes over successfully, refugees already receiving support can continue their lives with minimal disruption. If responsibilities become fragmented, questions about administration, funding and accountability could become more prominent.
For Reform UK, meanwhile, the episode demonstrates how immigration policy can become a central issue not only at Westminster but also inside local government.
The debate is unlikely to end with Lancashire. Britain is entering a period of substantial change in asylum and refugee policy, with new legal routes, tighter controls and changing responsibilities between central and local authorities.
Lancashire has chosen to step back. What happens next will show how effectively national and local institutions can manage the consequences of that decision.
