Nigel Farage has signalled that councils run by his Reform UK party could stop housing migrants who arrive in Britain under government resettlement schemes, a move that highlights growing tensions over asylum policy in local government.
Read more stories from our latest UK news
Writing for The Telegraph after Reform’s strong performance in the recent local elections, Farage said authorities led by his party would “always put the needs of local people first.” The party’s local election success, securing more than 1,300 new councillors and control of 14 councils, including Havering in London, has strengthened its influence across England.
Read related news:
Uk Labour Government delays local elections in 29 councils
London councils to get £36.5m boost to tackle homelessness
Starmer under pressure to resign as reform UK records massive election success
Last week, Reform‑led Lancashire County Council announced it would withdraw from the UK Resettlement Scheme (UKRS) and the Afghan Resettlement Programme (ARP), which have provided accommodation and support for thousands of asylum seekers. Farage suggested other Reform councils could take similar action, saying: “We will look very hard at leaving the Government’s migrant resettlement policy.”
Farage argued that local priorities, such as supporting ex‑servicemen who are homeless, should take precedence over spending on migrant housing. “The council made clear that there are real problems facing the people of Lancashire, which ought to take priority over spending more millions on illegal immigrants,” he wrote.
Impact on Refugees and Local Services
The International Organisation for Migration (IOM), a United Nations body, says it has helped resettle 3,978 refugees in the UK under the resettlement programmes since they began. The Afghan Resettlement Programme, which closed to new applications in July 2023, brought nearly 38,000 Afghans to the UK between August 2021 and its closure last year.
Councils join the UKRS and ARP voluntarily. They receive government funding to provide housing and support for asylum seekers for up to five years. Critics of Reform’s plans say withdrawing would not stop refugees being housed in a given area but could cut off future funding for those already there.
A spokesman for Lancashire County Council told the Lancashire Telegraph that any changes to participation in the resettlement schemes would require a formal decision by the council’s cabinet and would need to be balanced with legal obligations to vulnerable people.
Local charities have raised concerns about the potential impact of such withdrawals. One director of a regional refugee support charity, speaking anonymously, said that leaving the schemes “could leave vulnerable families without the support they need to rebuild their lives. It’s not just numbers — these are real people who rely on these programmes for safety and stability.”
Economic and Housing Considerations
Reform has argued that resettlement programmes impose financial costs on local areas. The party claimed that in Lancashire alone, the schemes have cost taxpayers an average of £7 million a year, including cash on arrival, welcome packages, assistance with utility bills, help registering with GPs, and support for claiming benefits.
Reform also alleged that housing availability has been affected because some properties are taken off the market months in advance to prepare for incoming migrants, placing “significant pressure on the local housing market.”
Some observers note that these figures can be misleading, as resettlement funding often offsets council housing costs by providing support that local services would otherwise have to cover. One local resident, Alan from Lancashire, expressed mixed views. He said he understood concerns about local resources but stressed that supporting people fleeing danger remains a moral duty
Under current rules, councils are not legally obliged to participate in the resettlement programmes. However, they remain subject to broader UK asylum laws and obligations regarding housing and support for vulnerable people.
The Homes for Ukraine Scheme, which offers support to people fleeing the war in Ukraine, operates under a different legal framework and would not be affected by any decision to withdraw from UKRS or ARP.
Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood has said the government plans to expand safe and legal refugee routes, including pathways for displaced students to study at British universities from next year. She said that improving the asylum system would make it possible to “go much bigger on safe and legal routes,” part of a broader effort to reduce dangerous illegal crossings.
Political Implications
Reform has made reducing migration a central pledge in its local and national campaigning. Its electoral success has brought increased scrutiny on how the party will translate campaign promises into council policy.
Farage said that Reform’s victories come with responsibility. “People have placed their faith in us, in a political system where faith is rapidly collapsing,” he wrote, adding that his party must now demonstrate that it can deliver real change in local government.
An Oldham resident, Alan Smit, says that the stance on resettlement reflects broader public frustration with national migration policy and the cost-of-living challenges faced across the UK. At the same time, Reform’s position puts it at odds with Labour and Conservative approaches to asylum and refugee resettlement, potentially complicating cooperation with other levels of government.
Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer has rejected calls to resign following losses in traditional heartlands, asserting that his government will continue its agenda despite voter frustration over services and economic pressures. The Conservatives also suffered heavy losses in the same elections, with Reform cutting into their support especially in areas that traditionally backed former prime minister Boris Johnson.
For now, the debate over migrant resettlement adds another dimension to an already volatile political landscape, as councils and national leaders grapple with how best to balance local needs with international obligations.
