Devolution, belonging and home for Refugees and Asylum Seekers
The UK’s hostile environment which has been shaping immigration since 2012 impacts sanctuary seekers, increasing discrimination and adversity, causing fear and amplifying felt displacement, rooted in the UK’s colonial history and intertwined with public attitudes (see also Sinha 2008; Kyambi and Kay 2025). While immigration is a fully reserved area of policy, many policy areas impacting sanctuary seekers are fully devolved to the Scottish and Welsh governments including health, education, transport and housing. Policy differences are framed by consistent, rhetorical push back against the hostile environment focusing on sanctuary, support and creating a welcoming environment: see New Scots Policy and Wales as a Nation of Sanctuary.
But what does this mean for the day to day lives of sanctuary seekers living in Scotland and Wales? Our project Devolved Governance, Welfare and Advocacy for Refugees and Asylum Seekers has interviewed 30 civil society representatives across England, Scotland and Wales to explore the impact of devolution on welfare and rights.
Differences: housing
Devolved policy differences between the three territories are wide-ranging; from mental health support, transport to social services, and one very tangible difference, woven through all policy areas, is housing support and allocation.
Many asylum seekers and even refugees, have No Recourse to Public Funds (NRPF) conditions on their permission to stay, meaning they cannot claim any benefit, tax credit or housing assistance, however, in Scotland and Wales there are exceptions regardless of NRPF. For example, in Wales, the Housing Wales Act (2014) classes information and signposting to housing and homelessness advice as ‘not public funds for the purposes of immigration’. This means that Welsh local authorities have a duty to provide this. For the same reason, the Social Services and Wellbeing Act (2014) means that in Wales adults and children in need of care and support have a right to accommodation. While this does not alter the day-to-day necessities for sanctuary seekers – where they live, how much money they have each week to eat and travel, including to school if many cases – it does create important avenues of support which may culminate in the translation of welcoming devolved policy narratives into lived experience.
Other differences are more immediately impactful on the day to day, for example, in Scotland, anyone can apply for social housing anywhere, while in England you can only access housing within the authority that you apply through. In addition, since 2012 in Scotland, the ‘priority need’ test has been abolished for many applicants, making Scotland’s homelessness response more inclusive than the rest of the UK. The law in Scotland means refugees are entitled to social housing on the day they apply and our Scottish civil society participants discussed this is a ‘pull factor’ to cities like Glasgow and Edinburgh:
“There’s a lot of pull factors… So, in Scotland, your time in asylum accommodation doesn’t count toward local connection, whereas in England it does so. When you get your status, if you’re in England, you have to apply to that local authority for homeless assistance. But if you come to Scotland or if you’re already in Scotland, you can apply anywhere in Scotland because we have a different law …. ” (CS Scotland)
This has meant an increase in sanctuary seekers moving to Scotland, and the big cities, particularly as the application process has recently sped-up, leaving many in housing limbo as they move from asylum seeker to refugee status or wait for an appeal on a decision. However, participants noted that local authority staff in some Scottish Councils have a much higher caseloads causing increased gatekeeping and some concerns within city councils.
Similarities: hotels
The recent acceleration of application processing, for those who are rejected and awaiting appeal, means higher numbers of people being allocated to hotels. There was notably more detail and concern about hotels from civil society organisations working in England but across the board, sanctuary seekers in hotels had less chance of receiving support from civil society organisations, because living in a hotel effectively cut them off from the local community; in the same way children living in hotels struggle to make friends and join social networks. More widely, living in a hotel exacerbated what we saw as a multi-tiered system. Tiers were visible based on English language ability, country of origin and length of time in the UK. Coming from Ukraine or Afghanistan, for example meant more access to support. Having poor English language skills impacts how someone is treated and their sense of belonging. Living in a hotel puts you in a lower tier regardless of other factors because of its impact on likelihood of getting access to support.
Devolved challenges and a way forward
For civil society organisations working to support sanctuary seekers in Scotland and Wales, devolution does make a tangible difference, particularly in terms of housing. However, the extent and reach of the hostile policy environment, exemplified in the example of hotels, the level of need, the infrastructure, pressure on the systems of local government and the far-right narratives gaining traction in communities across Wales and Scotland, present significant competing factors which put strain on devolved approaches and differences, operating in the long shadow of a centralised immigration system.
The Nuffield funded Race Equality After Devolution says ‘Devolution has provided space for civic, plural and anti-racist accounts of national belonging’ but cautions that ‘…the question is more than whether devolved governments say different things about race and belonging… [but] whether they build policy capacity to make those commitments governable…whether it changes behaviour, resources, incentives and outcomes…redistributes resources and power, and reduces racial inequalities in … housing, employment, policing, health and education’.
In Wales a recent Briefing by the Bevan Foundation on developing the Immigration Advice Sector goes some way towards bridging the implementation gap, further exemplifying the multiple and crucial roles of civil society in this field. This type of strategic activity, which is an umbrella to smaller, frontline civil society organisations which are firefighting, could be the missing piece between grassroots work and high-level policy narrative; bridging the implementation gap and improving day to day life for sanctuary seekers in Wales and Scotland.
About the authors
Dr Sioned Pearce is a Lecturer in Social Policy at the School of Social Sciences, Cardiff University. Her research focuses on how devolution and devolved social policies are reshaping work and welfare across the UK. Sioned explores areas such as social security, employment programmes, transport, and spatial inequalities—particularly how these changes affect marginalised groups. She is also part of the Safety Nets team, a project funded by the Nuffield Foundation, which investigates how devolved social security systems are influencing the lives of families in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, and England. Sioned also leads an ESRC funded WISERD project which looks at the impact of devolution on welfare and advocacy for refugees and asylum seekers across Scotland, England, and Wales.
Nivedita Narayan is currently a Research Associate at WISERD, Cardiff University. Nivedita completed her master’s degree in Inequalities and Social Science from the London School of Economics and Political Science in 2022. Her MSc thesis research explored the post-entry experiences of social mobility within the reputed public sector jobs for Dalits (lower caste, previously untouchable communities) in India.
Photo Credit: Ben Elliott on Unsplash