New Scots Refugee Integration Strategy 2024: engagement analysis report

Analysis of engagement which informed the development of Scotland’s New Scots Refugee Integration Strategy 2024.

Framework engagement events findings

The draft strategy – content

The first half of the Framework engagement event sessions revolved around the content of the most recent draft of the New Scots Strategy. Questions were designed to elicit feedback on elements of the draft that had been added and changed; elements that remained the same as they were in the previous iteration of the strategy; and more generally around the wording and phrasing of the document as a whole.

The vision

Overall, the vision for welcoming New Scots was seen as clear, ambitious, and distinctively positive, setting a high standard for integration and support from day one of arrival. The concept of being welcoming from day one of arrival was highly praised and the approach was seen as a stark contrast to policies in other parts of the UK. The vision's emphasis on immediate support and a warm reception was also seen as a significant strength. Participants felt that the vision's strengths include its focus on integration from day one of arrival, recognising different cultures, and not limiting the time for integration. The vision was also seen as aligning well with other policies and strategies, creating a cohesive approach to welcoming new Scots.

It is important to note, however, that while the feedback regarding the vision was largely positive, there was an acknowledgment that the vision is largely aspirational.

“It's important to strive for the best while being realistic and planning for potential challenges.”

It was also felt that there was a need for more precise, respectful, and empowering language, along with clearer definitions and concepts that acknowledge the diverse experiences and needs of refugees and people seeking asylum. The focus should be on supporting individuals in establishing their lives in Scotland in a manner that respects their autonomy and unique circumstances.

The principles

The principles were generally regarded as comprehensive and aspirational, however there was concern about their practical application. Feedback reflected a desire for a comprehensive, empathetic, and effectively implemented approach to rights and services, with a strong emphasis on trauma-informed practices, inclusivity, and real-world applicability.

The necessity of informing newcomers about their rights from day one was emphasised, with participants underlining that advocacy and clear information are crucial for effective integration.

Feedback showed that there is a need for services and resources that match the rights-based approach, ensuring that the principles are not only idealistic but also actionable and grounded in reality.

The introduction of trauma-informed principles was widely appreciated. Participants highlighted the importance of these practices in all services, reflecting a need for flexibility and understanding of individual needs.

The use of "restorative" in the context of restoring dignity and trust was welcomed. This concept aligns with trauma-informed practices and is seen as a positive step towards healing and integration.

The principle of partnership and collaboration was recognised as achievable and beneficial, having been seen as working in practice. There was agreement that this principle enhances engagement and supports a community-oriented approach.

Phrases like 'human approach' and 'compassion-based approach' were favoured, indicating a preference for policies that are empathetic and considerate of individual circumstances.

The strategy's inclusiveness and avoidance of assimilation were praised. Embracing cultural diversity and a person-centred approach were seen as strengths, though there was a recognition of the challenges in rural areas with less diversity and less experience of welcoming New Scots.

Effective implementation of principles, especially in mental health support and trauma-informed practices, was deemed essential.

There were also some specific requests made around the content, language and terminology used, as detailed below:

1. The term 'involvement' is seen as too vague; suggestions include replacing it with 'engagement', 'consultation', or 'peer-led'.

2. 'Integration from day 1' is viewed as unrealistic and not achievable. It is recommended to rephrase it as 'Working towards integration from day 1'.

3. The concept of 'integration' is debated, with some suggesting it implies a one-sided effort. 'Inclusion and integration' are preferred to emphasise the role of both arriving and established communities.

4. The term 'restorative' used in the context of the strategy is questioned, especially considering the trauma experienced by displaced persons.

5. Participants asked for greater acknowledgment of intersectionality, recognising that people carry their identities and experiences from their home countries, and these should not be repressed.

6. Some felt that the 'rights-based approach' is too vague, and there is a lack of clarity on entitlements, such as language learning. Others, however, emphasised the importance of a rights-based approach, ensuring that the rights of newcomers are understood and respected.

7. Inclusion is favoured over integration by some, as it suggests a mutual effort.

8. Racism and the different experiences of people based on visible differences should be addressed.

9. 'Involvement' should be strengthened to 'leading', advocating for refugees to lead based on their lived experiences.

10. Cooperation and equality should be highlighted in principles, showcasing the value of refugees.

Principle 3 is viewed by some as being particularly difficult to achieve due to changing policies.

The outcomes

The outcomes were generally viewed positively and were appreciated for being comprehensive, respectful, clear, and understandable to laypersons[8]. Participants felt that the outcomes align with the vision and principles of the strategy, offering more detailed goals. The practicality and emphasis on mutual, multilateral integration were seen as particular strengths of the strategy as a whole.

However, there were concerns raised about the realism and feasibility of the aspirational outcomes, particularly in the context of funding constraints and housing crises.

There were also some specific requests made around the content, language and terminology used, including:

1. Incorporation of terms like 'love' and 'compassion' to emphasise the importance of emotional intelligence in policy and practice.

2. Recognising the difference between treating all New Scots equally and addressing their unique needs equitably. Equity should be the focus, ensuring resources and support are tailored to individual circumstances.

3. Acknowledging the diversity of New Scots’ experiences, including trauma-informed services and the need for safety, especially in contexts like temporary hotel accommodation.

4. Highlighting the importance of intercultural understanding and integration, specifically tailored to the Scottish context. Avoid language that implies forced diversity - instead focus on valuing and understanding different cultures.

5. Addressing political challenges directly, including the complexities of the UK Government’s policies and the Home Office systems.

6. Ensure that all terms and outcomes are clearly defined and understood.

7. Policies and outcomes should be realistic and measurable. Vague goals are less likely to be achieved, and there should be clear indicators for measuring success.

The use of the term ‘New Scots’

While there were some comments regarding the applicability of the label ‘New Scot’ to people who have been in Scotland for a long time, it was generally appreciated for its inclusivity and positive connotations, making it easier for people to identify with rather than being labelled as 'refugees'.

Thematic analysis findings – framework engagement events

Thematic analysis of the comments made throughout the framework engagement events fell into a number of categories, presented below:

Material issues

During the strategy discussions, many participants highlighted systemic issues, particularly in housing, health, education, and employment. These were seen as some of the most pressing challenges faced by New Scots. However, several other significant concerns are also addressed in the overarching considerations.


Housing was an issue that was presented across numerous themes and was considered by many of the participants as a priority. The time it took for New Scots to receive adequate housing, the competition for housing, and issues with privatisation of housing, were discussed across the events. Several of the participants recognised the current ‘housing crisis’ and believed that these shortages were central to a lot of their issues:

“There’s an interesting question here about temporary accommodation. I know there are colleagues at SRC and we’ve heard perspectives of Ukrainians about the help they had and the useful, central support they were given when they were housed on ships. The accommodation question should be addressed, maybe here. But then if there’s a housing crisis, that temporary becomes not temporary, and then we have real problems.”

CEC have just declared a housing emergency, so homelessness is an already existing significant issue in places.”

“All great in theory, but difficult to implement due to lack of resources e.g. housing stock might not be safe (dodgy neighbours) but might not be a big deal from what they come from.”

The housing that is available is believed to be generally of poor quality:

“Integrate the reality of the housing crisis in Scotland: the housing that is left is not great / dignifying. Locals are already waiting for housing, and it creates a discrepancies between locals and new arrivals.”

“Houses in poor condition generally, build new/fix existing.”

There was also a view that these ‘housing issues’ were creating conflict between New Scots and receiving communities, and resolving the issue would in many ways counteract this:

“[housing issue] creates hostility and barriers.”

“Difficult to integrate and welcome people when competing for housing.”

“Higher or better standards in building housing for all, stops divisions; ‘why fix theirs and not mine’.”


The relationship between health and New Scots was heavily discussed across the engagement events. Health has been broken down into ‘health in general’, and ‘mental health’ for the sake of clarity in this report. Overall, the vast majority of responses that discussed these themes were negative. The concept of ‘trauma-informed’ also has its own specific subheading in this section in order to reveal the thoughts and feelings behind its inclusion in the latest strategy. The trauma-informed approach was generally considered to be a positive development for the new document.

Health in general

The health issues faced by New Scots were generally as a result of a lack of awareness related to rights and access to the NHS, the complicated nature of health assessments and general costs related to healthcare:

“Even the ones who want to go back is because of the expensive nature of healthcare but in most cases, refugees willingly want to integrate.”

“Health assessments are too long or complicated”

Mental health

Unsurprisingly, given the conditions that many of the New Scots had come from and the hostile nature of the UK asylum system, mental health was the most discussed form of health across the events. There were very few positives in the experiences or perceptions of how mental health was addressed, while the most common concerns were in relation to the stigma attached to trauma, the cultural limitations in expressing such experiences, and the lack of attention to mental health in the draft strategy:

“Principle missing - need to address mental health, mental illness, mental wellbeing. It's the foundation for everything else.”

“Person centred approach is good and vital to understanding but how slowly things move in Government often causes frustration – need to be more aware of what refugees have been through and help required – may say they are fine and display stoicism/ don’t want to show weakness but they have suffered trauma by what they’ve lived through - left behind family/forced relocation/lack of news etc - key area that lacks support is mental health and access to psychologists/therapists.”


There was acknowledgement from participants that the trauma-informed approach was vital in ensuring a more comfortable transition for New Scots. There were some queries around how effective this would be, what the term trauma-informed entailed, and some issues were raised regarding the reality of the situation for New Scots in the present and foreseeable future. It was, however, deemed by the majority who spoke on the issue as being a vitally important feature in the strategy.

“Trauma informed - Good and important as a key principle.”

“Encouraging to consider trauma, great to have this, and is necessary to have trauma-informed. Important.”

It was also believed that all staff and practitioners alike should have relevant training and understanding of this approach due to concerns that it would not be appropriately implemented:

“Make sure professionals, volunteers, orgs have trauma-informed knowledge.”

“Trauma informed - very positive principle but need training and concrete action for meaningful implementation.”

Education and employment

Education and employment were very rarely discussed as separate matters during the discussions. The majority of responses in relation to these themes were quite negative in that participants felt there was a lack of recognition of skills and employment in the outcomes of the strategy.

The main areas for analysis here are broken down into three themes: transferable skills, language, and access. Very often these areas overlap but are worth noting in their own right in order to address correctly. There was also some mention of children when it came to education, but this will be addressed in the theme of ‘intersectionality’.

Transferable skills

Across the events, there was a general view that the skills and potential contributions of New Scots were overlooked in the draft strategy. Several participants also drew attention to the shortages of staff in the healthcare and education sectors and believed that with a better ‘skills recognition’ system in place, alongside cheap and affordable access courses to transfer their skills, New Scots could assist with these shortages in the Scottish NHS and education.

“Skills of New Scots are not included. Should have new outcome utilising the skills of people for employment.”

“Many people back in their home country have skills they cannot use here, because integration is too long, hindered by language.”

“There is not an appreciation of skills and talents that people bring to Scotland. How do we help people understand that they bring.”

Many in attendance also felt that with a better transferable skills system in place, and with the ability to work and contribute to the economy, perceptions and stigma around New Scots would change for the better.

“Move away from refugees taking resources from Scots. Focus on what skills they bring.”


Language was a significant point that featured across multiple themes at each of the events.[9] However, the feedback around language in relation to education and employment was often vague, which was potentially a product of the methodology.[10] Nonetheless, it remained as an important feature in the discussions and was considered to be one of the biggest barriers when it came to transferrable skills and education:

“Many people back in their home country have skills they cannot use here, because integration is too long, and they are hindered by language.”

“Continuing support as people don't have sufficient literacy/language skills to gain employment.”

“Language is key to everything.”

There were also concerns around the lack of funding for English speaking courses, which was a sentiment shared across multiple events. Learning English was considered to be of the most vital importance for New Scots, so that they could find work, appeal to employers, and even work in roles that could benefit fellow New Scots.

“Should include more about language. More focus on ESOL (English for Speakers of Other Languages) classes. Funding is declining… when the demand is rising.”

“Experience now is better but still not full integration, refugees can only access college ESOL > can have to wait up to a year. Uni course is £6000.00.”

ESOL now under Adult Learning - combined budget making things difficult - means people are stretched across the whole department - much less time to focus on ESOL itself.”


The term intersectionality was used only once across the events. There were, however, numerous themes which fall into this categorisation and so have been placed under this section for ease of access, elaboration, and understanding in this report.


Gender was one of the most prominent areas for discussion in relation to intersectional issues. In every case, this was in relation to women, and was mostly in relation to mothers. There was a general view that there should be better education around gender differences within the draft strategy.

“Group members reflected that they would appreciate the inclusion of gender-specific language to acknowledge how policy/ strategy has gender-specific implications.”

“Integration needs to be looked with a gendered lens as men and women will have very different experience.”

In relation to mothers, there were issues raised regarding childcare and the inability to work due to a lack of support, language barriers, and a lack of understanding around their rights.

“Home for Ukraine - many single mothers. Lack of network creates real problems for childcare - key barrier for integration and work. No job from 0900 till 1500. College classes not accessible during school hours (travel time in rural areas.”


Discussions around age were in almost every instance related to children but were quite limited. There were concerns from participants that the draft strategy did not reflect on or engage with the needs and rights with children enough. The biggest concerns were around education, language and the mental health of children, with a view that there was a lack of support in each of these areas. There was also uncertainty around how children from different backgrounds and with different needs were being assisted.


Data on disability again was quite limited and that which was discussed tended to emphasise children, who were seen to have a lack of support, with the view that there was little said about children with disabilities (or ‘special needs’) in the draft strategy.

LGBTI and gender recognition

Only one mention was made in regard to the LGBTI community which was around sharing accommodation:

“[There should be a] place people LGBT feel comfortable [going to].”

It should be acknowledged, however, that a lack of discussion on this matter does not necessarily reflect a lack of need.

Evaluating the strategy document

The draft strategy received a mixed response in terms of its message and its proposed delivery. There was a general agreement across the events that the message was ambitious, positive, inclusive, and direct - although the latter point was not a view shared by all participants. Many contributors agreed that although the message is ambitious, it needs to be supported and underpinned by funding to make it a reality. These differences are reflected in the following positive and negative categories:


There was a generally positive response about the strategy as a whole. Many of the participants took pride in the fact that so much attention and consideration was being given to New Scots and how it made them feel welcomed in the country:

“Proud of strategy, proud to live in Scotland and be in a place of safety for persons who need it.”

“Strategy is aspirational and positive.”

“Strategy is very good, built on development and work over the last few years and having good reflection on how we can build.”

Specific aspects of the draft strategy such as lived-experience and the person-centred approach were especially embraced:

“Overall, very inclusive and positive - ambitious put possible - mentoring by lived experience and welcome packs again.

“Person-centred approach - not grouping or labelling people.”



Although the strategy was viewed as generally quite positive, there were numerous instances in which individuals were sceptical about its achievability. In the majority of cases this scepticism came from concerns around resources:

“Strategy document as a whole - great to be ambitious, but it also needs to be more realistic according to current resources/policies/funding/outcomes need to be deliverable.”

There were also some issues in terms of how the existing resources were managed:

“This strategy is an essential need but perhaps consider as a framework for moving resources to target key areas rather than universal application across Scotland. Sometimes arrival support for refugees is not happening from day one.”


There was a belief from numerous participants that while the message of the draft strategy was mostly positive, it failed to set out how success was going to be achieved and measured. This was often down to a lack of clarity and how vague the language was in the document, or in relation to it being over ambitious.

Does not reflect the reality for New Scots

There was a strong view from numerous participants that although the strategy claimed to support the notion of ‘rebuilding’ the lives of refugees and people seeking asylum, this claim did not reflect the reality of the situation for many New Scots. Some of the discussions in this respect mentioned the lack of support from ‘day 1’, and how after 18 months, some were still not able to ‘rebuild’ their lives, which overlapped with some of the other themes:

“After 18 months some people have not been able to learn English, be part of communities, what are their prospects of rebuilding?”

“Rebuilding lives: that may not be their truth.”

“…that people can rebuild their lives from Day 1 is an assumption.”

There were also issues in respect of how the term ‘rebuild’ was used, with some suggesting it was not ‘positive’, and that it should not be considered solely as a rebuild as this suggests they need to be ‘saved’ or that they were in some way broken which could be taken negatively, and is contrary to the idea that New Scots have something to offer Scotland:

“Issue with a deficit model/terminology - “help refugees and asylum seekers REBUILD their lives.” Implies we have to save them and that they arrive in Scotland with nothing to contribute’.”

“Rebuild has connotations of mentally broken which put people down in society.”

Scottish Government vs UK Government issues (devolved / reserved powers)

Many of the participants were concerned about the difficulties in realising the strategy due to the lack of devolved powers, and the powers held at a reserved level. Many felt that UK Government is holding Scottish Government back from doing what is required to achieve the outcomes, others believed that the aims and outcomes were just not achievable at all; in many instances participants felt that the draft strategy did not elaborate on these facts enough:

“A crucial point is, due to UKG controls and separation between devolved matters, outcome No. 6 isn’t relevant to overall strategy as not in SG’s influence or power – this is a significant disparity, and the outcome is aspirational.”

“How can we apply this with people still seeking asylum who don't have access to public funds. We have Scottish aspirations that have limitations because of devolved matters.”

Some of the most common concerns, however, were around the lack of knowledge of rights and the UK asylum system, perceived human rights violations, and the implications of these issues for New Scots:

UK government are making asylum seeking illegal in the UK, or certainly they are making it very difficult. If the illegal migration bill passes, then the Scottish Government go against the grain with that, how will that play out? Should we just be more open about wanting a community where everyone is welcome and if people want to live here then they can live here? An international human rights-based approach.”

“Damage is done in first two weeks - SG should say to UK Gov this is against Human Rights.”

While data on this front was limited, the differences in approach were in some cases considered to have a material effect on individuals:

“We shouldn’t have to be dealing with problems caused by UK Gov. e.g. phones being taken - 3rd sector then has to provide phones. Wearing same clothes for a month, false promises and lies.”

The relationship with the UK Government and media was also a concern for participants who believed that these issues could be addressed in the strategy, and in doing so could challenge the existing negative narratives around immigration:

“Myth Busters - myths about people coming to the country - myths about services - strategy could include challenges against UK Gov approach and media demonisation - this should be directly challenged in the strategy - easily accessible challenges against myths.”

“The media narrative is very negative and a lot of this is coming from the UK government, we should maybe get SG to come out and clarify their position.”


Generally, participants were concerned about the lack of funding and felt the aims were potentially over-ambitious as a result. Several participants spoke about the sudden cuts to specific funding areas:

“Huge concerns around funding or resources, as needed to provide. Community / Learning and Development around ESOL, funding has been cut.”

“Rights-based approach, nice idea, but not always deliverable. Funding cuts have killed a lot of services. Having to rely on churches for some services.”

Funding was also believed to be an issue regarding staffing and job security for those in services and roles dedicated to New Scots:

“Staff retention issues due to lack of funding security- inability to plan for future - SG are focused on Ukraine which is problematic for third sector and local authorities who aren't working with one community/ nationality.”

“Implementation gap because of a resource gap/lack of funding. We don't have the mechanisms for delivering the outcomes.”

Rural provisions

Some participants were of the view that funding was not evenly distributed, and that more rural areas of the country often significantly lacked the means to provide similar or sufficient levels of support to those offered in more urban areas, particularly in areas with long established support networks:

“Try to make funding, info and support more geographically inclusive - often there are services, support that's only for central belt / or only accessible in the central belt and geared to city experience e.g. guardianship.”

“Lack of funding for smaller or rural authorities to realise these outcomes. There are big differences geographically in resources and integration.”

Many of the participants also believed that there was a lack of transport in rural areas which created further isolation:

“Not really a mention of transport. Idea of bus pass next year. Extend freedom of movement to more groups. People in more rural areas need good access. Can be quite isolating.”

“Transport is an issue - lack of local buses to get New Scots to services if placed in rural areas.”


Most participants were positive about collaboration and partnerships in the draft strategy, as they believed it was something that has worked in the past, and was central to much of the successes within communities:

“Partnership and collaboration feels like an achievable principle which we have seen working in reality.”

“Partnership and collaboration is important in educating each other and transferring that knowledge across peers and partners.”

Some participants were specific in their response to collaboration to provide examples of where such approaches had worked well:

“Orkney partnered with City of Edinburgh Council to access their library resources app call My Libby – great collaboration.”

“Public Health Scotland - once for Scotland Approach.”

However, there were still some concerns about collaboration and the limitations in this approach:

“The partnership and collaboration can be one of the most difficult parts, at least that's my experience locally.”

“Differences (tension) within the refugee communities hinder collaboration - engage advisors.”

Documents and information

There was a general view that accessible information was at times extremely unorganised and unhelpful or otherwise entirely unavailable. There were some mixed responses regarding how this should be handled, with some suggestions that face-to-face or in-person information sharing was better than information provided online or in print, with others suggesting the contrary. However, some of the strongest themes to emerge in this respect were in relation to suggestions around the creation of a universal or centralised directory:

“Need a partners New Scots Network - online directory - who does what - New Scots connect map - not funded.”

“Need a universal directory.”

“No centralised power - 'pillar to post' Hubs were good but could be better supported eventually disbanded. No central place for info - create stability. 24 hour helpline?”

Culture and identity

Culture and identity were important themes that re-appeared across the events. In some cases, these overlapped with the idea of the ‘New Scots’ identity[12] but were relevant mostly in relation to building communities, assimilation, integration and challenging racism.

Building community

Most participants agreed that the wording in the draft strategy around communities was positive. Participants took pride in the idea of ‘integrated’ and ‘inclusive’ communities. However, it was generally viewed that there should be more support for community hubs and other such places:

“Give time to local churches to set up coffee morning, make connection in community.”

“Community Hubs - space for local community to get together.”

“One stop shop- hub where people can go for Maybe more funding for community hubs - Some areas have access/ difficulties in rural areas + outside central belt.”

There was some limited scepticism around this approach as some felt that their own culture would be considered as secondary:

“Integrating into intercultural communities can be a big challenge depending on local population/socio-economic factors – e.g. Orkney is not a diverse community therefore it doesn’t apply in the same way there and Syrian families have not been able to integrate as there aren’t enough of them to create something meaningful.”

“Inclusive, intercultural communities - many people think it is assimilation but should be able to keep identity.”


Participants across the events largely believed that integration must be worked on by all sides involved. This includes New Scots themselves, the receiving population and the Government. Some of the ways in which they felt this could be done was through education and cultural exchange:

“Education community as a whole - more collaboration in schools, more funding for ESOL!! More sports culturally rooted!”

“'Integration interculturally' - needs tidied up - two way is good - integration is intercultural - exchange of culture.”

Some participants considered other ways to try and encourage participation and interest from all sides, which included the introduction of a New Scots Tartan, and shared community events that would show the positives of such cultural exchange:

“Like the idea of wider stakeholder engagement, bring in different voices, including asylum seekers' voices, different to persons with refugee status.”

“Talk up the positive narrative of what refugees can offer - using media, events like Refugee Festival Scotland to communicate/ deliver a positive message.”

There remained however a lot of concerns around the media and the issues this created for New Scots which was why there had to be a nation-wide counter narrative:

“Lack of knowledge causes fear, strategy needs to do more to engage the general public to challenge the narrative in the media.”

“the narrative in the media just now is overly negative, and as part of the strategy we need to have something that addresses that so that the general public have a more balanced view and more understanding. A lot of the emphasis is on people arriving in the country and integrating, we need to look at the other side and think how do we support the general public to be welcoming.”

Tackling racism

There was a strong feeling across the groups that racism had to be challenged far more effectively in Scotland. Some participants felt the draft strategy did not do enough to reflect this and were quite vocal in their opinions on this matter, and how it could be addressed:

“Need to address racism and acknowledge the difference of experience of people based on their visible differences.”

“Going into schools - key to have in schools - starts at school.”

“Item 4 should directly link to anti-racism policies in Scotland. The responsibility shouldn't be on the New Scots, but Government and Communities.”

Engagement events experience

Regarding the events themselves, there were very few comments recorded and in discussion with facilitators and note-takers, general feelings from participants at many tables on the day were broadly positive. This suggests that a significant caveat should be provided regarding the data captured here as it is not of sufficient weight to be considered generalisable. However, for those who did make comments that were captured, the sentiments were particularly negative and pessimistic:

“Involvement isn’t big enough - it's not enough to invite people along once and ask a few questions.”

“It’s not good enough to have people along to rubber stamp something at the end.”

Other feedback

The Community Learning and Development Standards Council provided a response, separate to the engagement events, regarding integration in the draft strategy. They suggested:

“The current draft strategy references education in both its principles and outcomes however there is no mention of accessing ESOL as a critical part of integration. We assume that the right to access learning opportunities to develop an individual’s English language skills will come under the banner of education, however we strongly urge that this strategy separates education and language acquisition and specifies the right to English tuition for all ages. Without these specified principles and outcomes, the achievement of an “education outcome” may only be recognised through provision for young people in schools. If this is the case, the vital need for community and college based ESOL for older aged refugees and people seeking asylum will not be recognised and therefore not funded.”[14]



Back to top