The row centres on a £100 million Home Office-funded pilot, which enables councils to acquire and refurbish around 900 properties.
Lee Anderson has persistently voiced his concerns about illegal immigration (Image: GETTY)
Lee Anderson has delivered a scathing three-word verdict on a controversial Labour pilot scheme to house asylum seekers in local community properties: “Just say no.” The Reform UK MP for Ashfield offered his angry assessment in Parliament on Monday, branding the initiative a “madcap idea” that prioritises “illegal migrants” over British citizens amid a crippling housing crisis.
Hiss comments came during oral questions to the Home Department, where he grilled Border Security and Asylum Minister Mr Norris on whether the plan would “help smash the gangs” behind Channel crossings. Mr Norris dismissed the concerns, urging the Reform MP to “spend less time reading newspapers and more time listening to what is said in this Chamber.” The minister highlighted an impending “asylum policy statement” as the “most significant change to our asylum system in a generation”.
This statement aims to slash UK asylum claims while they fall across the EU. Mr Norris insisted that reducing numbers is the primary key to closing costly asylum hotels, rejecting “three-word answers” in favour of what he described as a “serious” policy approach.
Mr Anderson then took stepped up his attack on X. Reposting a Reform UK video of the exchange, he captioned it simply: “Just say no.”
In a separate post, he declared: “Social Housing For Illegal Migrants. Today I asked the Minister about the plans to build council houses for Illegal migrants. Once again the question was dodged. Funny that.”
Reform UK’s official account echoed the sentiment: “Say NO to council houses for illegal migrants” – a rallying cry which attracted thousands of views and likes within hours.
Lee Anderson speaking in the House of Commons on Monday (Image: Parliament TV)
The row centres on a £100 million Home Office-funded pilot, which enables councils to acquire and refurbish around 900 properties. While Mr Anderson describes them as “new builds,” the scheme primarily focuses on purchasing existing stock or renovating derelict units specifically for those awaiting asylum decisions.
These homes would be leased back to the Government initially before eventually integrating into the general social housing stock. Nearly 200 local authorities have shown interest, with five Labour-led councils – Brighton and Hove, Hackney, Peterborough, Thanet, and Powys – confirmed to participate.
Proponents argue it is a pragmatic fix to the “scandalous” reliance on hotels and private rentals. Currently, approximately 36,000 asylum seekers reside in such accommodation at a cost of £145 per night per person. This has led to contracts with private firms ballooning to an estimated £15.3 billion.
Brighton and Hove leader Bella Sankey hailed the pilot as a “win-win” that slashes private profits and bolsters local services for long-term savings. The Government maintains a target to close all asylum hotels by 2029, with Mr Norris noting that a one-third drop in spending has already been achieved through faster processing.
But critics, spearheaded by Mr Anderson, slam it as a “disgrace” that rewards Channel crossers while 1.33 million households languish on England’s social housing waiting lists – the highest figures recorded since 2014.
In a letter to Home Secretary Yvette Cooper, Mr Anderson fumed: “This is outrageous. How many times have I said that British people must be prioritised for British housing.”
“Instead, thanks to Labour, we will have council houses being repurposed exclusively for asylum seekers, and the British taxpayers who are stuck in the housing waiting list are being forced to pay for it.” He called it “yet again another kick in the teeth to the British people who are being treated as second class citizens,” proposing instead a policy of “detain and deport.”
Mr Anderson, a former Tory MP who defected to Reform, has repeatedly decried the scheme as “disgusting,” arguing it pits migrants against locals in a fight for scarce resources. His stance resonates online, with X users demanding: “No to council houses for #ILLEGALimmigrants.” Others linked it to broader migration woes: “What’s not to like? Our money spent on immigrant council houses!”
Defenders counter that asylum seekers—who are legally distinct from “illegal immigrants” until their claims are adjudicated—are not eligible for standard benefits or permanent housing immediately. They argue the scheme adds to the overall housing stock without diverting existing units from locals. One X post accused Mr Anderson of spreading “lies,” noting: “Illegal immigrants are not prioritised for council homes.”
The pilot risks reigniting tensions after the civil unrest seen in previous years, with leaders like Rotherham Council’s Chris Read fearing redirected anti-migrant anger. As asylum claims fluctuate, making Britain a perceived “golden ticket” for some, the Government insists the pilot is part of a fairer distribution system designed to ease the burden on the most deprived areas.
However, Mr Anderson’s blunt dismissal underscores deepening national divides. With protests looming and housing shortages biting, this “giveaway” could explode into Labour’s first major migration backlash of 2026.
