Lancashire County Council is to tell the government it is no longer willing to co-ordinate the delivery of support for more than 700 refugees in the area.
The Reform UK-run authority has voted to stop administering a total of five refugee resettlement schemes. Four of the initiatives are for Afghans who assisted British military operations in their home country and the fifth covers other vulnerable people who have fled conflict and persecution around the world.
Reform councilors say it is fair and ‘value for money’
The ruling group’s cabinet made the decision on the basis of what the member proposing it said were matters of fairness and “value for money”.
However, the move has prompted a chorus of criticism from opposition politicians – including accusations of xenophobia and claims that it will actually cost the authority money.
Collectively, all of County Hall’s opposition groups have chosen to ‘call in’ the decision – meaning it will be reassessed by a cross-party scrutiny committee to ensure it has not breached any of the principles by which it should have been reached under the authority’s constitution.
Responsibility for support will shift elsewhere
All 745 refugees in Lancashire currently being supported by the Home Office-funded programmes from which the county council is stepping away – out of a total of 1,250 that have been helped to date – arrived in the UK legally and have been granted the right to remain here indefinitely.
The resolution by the county council to end its involvement with the initiatives will not mean the end of the support to which the refugees who have made Lancashire their home are entitled. Responsibility will instead shift to whatever organisations the government can persuade to take it on – most likely the 14 district and standalone councils in Lancashire, which already have housing duties for the rest of the resident population.
A report presented to the cabinet meeting at which the issue was debated on Thursday also stressed that a withdrawal by county council would “not automatically result in an end to refugees resettling in Lancashire”. Under both the Afghan support programmes and the UK Resettlement Scheme (UKRS) for other nationalities – excluding Ukrainians who are covered by different initiatives – families could still be “dispersed into Lancashire” by other authorities or could choose to move to the county independently.
No similar support for other vulnerable groups?
Nevertheless, in recommending an end to County Hall’s administration of the schemes by 31st March 2027 at the latest, cabinet member for rural affairs, environment and communities Joshua Roberts said there was an inherent “unfairness” to them.
“[The programmes provide] a named caseworker for up to five years, help accessing services, help with getting a GP, help with a school place, help claiming benefits, help into work [and] regular contact to check how they’re getting on and [to] deal with problems as they arise.
“That is a serious package of support – and there is no equivalent co-ordinated offer for any other vulnerable group in Lancashire…that’s the most important [thing].
“This scheme is dedicated to one group – and yet other people have to go through five [or] six different avenues to receive the same level of support. I don’t think that’s fair – and I don’t think we can justify this scheme to the people we represent,” County Cllr Roberts added.
He also said it would “make sense” for refugee support to be led by all the other local authorities in Lancashire which, unlike the county council, have general housing responsibilities.
Some fear this is xenophobia
However, in sometimes testy exchanges with the leadership of the Progressive Lancashire main opposition – who also sit around the cabinet table – Reform was accused of having an ulterior motive.
County Cllr Azhar Ali, the group’s leader, suggested Lancashire’s refugees were being used as “guinea pigs” to test out “national Reform UK policy”. He said the decision was being taken on the day the party’s conference started in an attempt to “get some plaudits”.
“So this is premeditated, this has been planned for months – Facebook [activity] demonstrates that,” County Cllr Ali said.
He then claimed that posts made on Facebook by Reform in relation to the issue “really are xenophobic”.
That drew the ire of county council leader Stephen Atkinson who told him he was “out of order” and briefly stopped him speaking.
County Cllr Roberts denied coming to a predetermined position in the lead up to the meeting and said his social media posts would show he had an” open mind” on the subject, having explored the options in “great detail” over the past 12 months.
Is it about housing or other forms of support?
His colleague , Matthew Salter – the portfolio-holder for education and skills – highlighted that 42,000 people in Lancashire are currently on the waiting list for housing and said that was “the heart of the issue”.
He added: “We’re elected by the people of Lancashire to bring change, to reject the business-as-usual approach of the establishment and to deliver on the wishes of the electorate.
“I believe withdrawing from this scheme would make clear we are doing things differently.”
However, deputy Progressive Lancashire leader – and Green Party group leader – Gina Dowding said the report demonstrated that the issue was not one primarily about housing, but the “range of other support that’s needed” by refugees.
The document – authored by the county council’s director of communities and engagement – noted that under the Afghan Resettlement Programme (ARP), the main current scheme for Afghan refugees in the UK, “the majority of families and individuals…are expected to find their own accommodation and so, for most cases, housing is not sourced by local authorities”.
The report also stated that of the “vast majority” of the 350 properties that have been occupied by refugees on the five schemes in question over recent years were in the hands of “private landlords” – meaning they were not dwellings that would have been available for social rent by those on housing waiting lists. Currently, 180 homes remain in use for that purpose as of the end of March this year.
The majority of these refugees helped out veterans in Afghanistan
County Cllr Dowding said the number of refugees placed in each district was “very small” in any case – and claimed that the public was not as preoccupied with the subject as Reform.
“[These are] people fleeing persecution [and] violence from abroad, who have already achieved the right to remain in the UK and have come to Lancashire – and no matter what you, as a Reform administration [believe] or your national advisers tell you…those people, by the vast majority of residents in Lancashire, are welcomed and [it is] recognised that they they need support.
“The majority are Afghan refugees – those people who helped support our veterans and soldiers…when we were waging war there. So I find it astonishing that this…is even up for debate,” County Cllr Dowding said.
The cabinet unanimously supported Cllr Roberts’ proposal for a single “managed transition” of the responsibility for the refugees to a new authority by next spring – which he said would better project the interest of the families concerned than a phased handover.
Money-go-round
Lancashire County Council has claimed a total of £18m in funding from the government since 2020 to deliver the refugee schemes now being withdrawn from – £6.5m of which has yet to be used, with £2.2m yet to be received.
The cash can only be spent on the initiatives for which it is intended, but the report to cabinet members noted the conditions attached to the grant money allow resettlement funding to be used to “support other services within Lancashire County Council where [they] are accessed by residents supported by refugee resettlement programmes”.
It also stressed that – regardless of its role administering the resettlement schemes – the authority has a duty to provide statutory services to all residents, including refugees. The cost of doing so for the latter, currently supported, group has been estimated at £800,000 a year – an average of just over £1,000 per person after their second year of residence.
An agreement will have to be reached with the authorities that take over responsibility for the schemes to fund those statutory services for refugee use in order to “avoid any risk of creating an additional burden to the county council”.
County Cllr Dowding said the situation was being made complex for no good reason as a result of the county council jettisoning its co-ordination role.
“It’s a system that’s set up, it’s been working okay [and] the funding’s available. What we…absolutely know is that this scheme has no cost to individuals or the taxpayers of Lancashire, but withdrawing from it could…very likely introduce costs,” County Cllr Dowding said.
Will it save money or cost Lancashire voters more?
County Cllr Roberts disputed that there were no financial implications for residents in Lancashire, stating: “Every month they pay tax, which goes to national government – national government then gives these schemes [money].”
However, County Cllr Ali echoed his group colleague’s concerns about the hidden costs of County Hall no longer administering the initiatives locally – which he claimed would amount to £1m a year.
“If we pull out of this scheme today…does this mean that these people will not receive any services from Lancashire County Council? No, it [does] not.
“This is all smoke and mirrors because we still will have a responsibility to provide schooling to the children, children’s services, youth services…and we will not have the direct data from the Home Office and other government agencies. So, in essence, it will cost us more money,” County Cllr Ali said.
The four new super councils that will replace Lancashire’s existing 15 local authorities in April 2028 as part of a government -ordered shake-up will each assume any remaining refugee support responsibility from that date.
What do refugees in Lancashire get from the county council?
The current funding instructions from the Home Office say that local authorities co-ordinating refugee resettlement schemes must:
- Provide tailored casework support to each resettled refugee household for up to three or five years (depending on the scheme);
- Provide safe and suitable accommodation for refugees (although under the Afghan Resettlement Programme, the majority are expected to find their own);
- Support access to essential services, such as GP registration, schools and benefits;
- Deliver ongoing integration support and help with English language learning;
- Assist with employment and skills development;
- Facilitate community integration and social inclusion;
- Maintain regular contact with refugee households to monitor progress and address emerging needs;
- Ensure safeguarding and risk management for refugees and existing residents.
‘Morally and financially bankrupt’
The decision by the county council to stop administering the refugee schemes sparked varying degrees of condemnation from other opposition parties at County Hall.
Conservative group leader Aidy Riggott told the Local Democracy Reporting Service he had “reluctantly” supported the call-in request as he had “some concerns about how the decision was taken”.
“In my comments prior to the meeting, I shared my concerns about the potential impact of this decision on the county council’s budget – and I do not feel this was given sufficient consideration at the meeting.
“I am also concerned about the failure to adequately mitigate any concerns of pre-determination, a matter that could perhaps have easily been resolved if the relevant cabinet member had fully informed the cabinet about their earlier statements on social media and recused themselves from the decision,” County Cllr Riggott said.
County Cllr Mark Clifford, the Labour group leader said he was appalled the authority was turning its back on “people that fought alongside us in Afghanistan”.
We owe these people respect
He added: “They stood up for democracy, the rule of law and everything that we believe in. These people are not illegal immigrants – they genuinely helped the British Army.
“We owe them so much respect and for them to be treated the way they are at the moment is just absolutely disgusting.
Meanwhile, Liberal Democrat group leader John Potter said: “This is typical of Reform in Lancashire – concentrating on empty gestures despite the real-life consequences hurting the people in Lancashire.
“This decision will cost taxpayers money, put more financial stress on stretched council services and disgracefully turn our backs on genuine refugees. Morally bankrupt and financially dumb – Lancashire Reform in a nutshell.”
By Local Democracy Reporter Paul Faulkner.
Bylines Network & No One Above
Where is justice? Survivors voices in parliament
NOA and Bylines Network are collaborating to make sure those voices are heard by the decision-makers who can remove the roadblocks to justice and address systemic failures of accountability.
Your support will allow us to put Gazettes in the hands of all MPs and make the campaign visible around parliament.
