Britain’s Asylum Seeker Hotspots Mapped: The Areas Housing More Than 1,000 People

Britain’s asylum system has become one of the most politically contentious issues facing the country, and new figures reveal just how unevenly asylum seekers are distributed across local authorities.

The latest Home Office statistics show that, at the end of March 2026, 97,519 people were receiving asylum support across the UK. Of these, 20,885 were accommodated in hotels, while 72,768 were living in other forms of accommodation, including dispersal and contingency housing.

The figures provide a striking picture of where the pressure is concentrated.

Among the local authorities with the largest numbers of supported asylum seekers were Glasgow City, Birmingham, Liverpool, Coventry and Belfast. Glasgow alone had 3,870 supported asylum seekers, followed by Birmingham with 2,142, Liverpool with 2,053, Coventry with 1,712 and Belfast with 1,607.

These figures have inevitably intensified the political debate about whether asylum seekers are being distributed fairly across Britain.

Glasgow tops the list

Glasgow stands out dramatically.

With 3,870 supported asylum seekers recorded at the end of March, the Scottish city had the highest number of any local authority in the Home Office data. Birmingham was next, followed by Liverpool and Coventry.

The concentration is not accidental.

Britain’s asylum dispersal system has traditionally relied heavily on areas where accommodation is available and relatively affordable. The House of Commons Library explains that dispersal accommodation has commonly consisted of flats, houses and rooms in houses in multiple occupation, with hotels added when demand exceeded available capacity.

This creates an important distinction between where asylum seekers are accommodated and where asylum seekers initially arrive.

The areas receiving the largest numbers are not necessarily the places experiencing the greatest number of Channel crossings.

Instead, asylum seekers can be moved around the country while their applications are processed.

That means the political map of asylum accommodation looks very different from the map of small-boat arrivals.

Birmingham, Liverpool and Coventry under pressure

Birmingham’s figure of 2,142 is particularly significant because of the city’s enormous population and existing pressures on public services.

Liverpool follows closely behind with 2,053, while Coventry has 1,712.

These are major urban areas with established migrant communities and significant experience of accommodating newcomers.

But that does not mean there are no pressures.

Local authorities are already dealing with enormous demands on housing, healthcare, education and social services.

When thousands of additional people are placed into a particular area, local politicians can face difficult questions about capacity.

Are there enough homes?

Are GP services able to cope?

Can schools accommodate additional pupils?

Does the local authority have sufficient funding?

And perhaps most importantly, do local residents believe the system is fair?

Those questions are legitimate regardless of one’s views about asylum.

A much more complicated picture than the headlines suggest

There is an important caveat to the figures.

The Home Office explicitly warns that its local-authority numbers are based on the registered address of an asylum seeker, which is not necessarily the location where that person regularly resides.

This means the statistics should not be interpreted as a precise count of everyone physically present in a particular neighbourhood.

They are nevertheless useful for understanding the broad distribution of people receiving asylum support.

The data also exclude unaccompanied asylum-seeking children who are supported directly by local authorities.

Consequently, the total number of people involved in the wider asylum system can be higher than the headline figure suggests.

Why poorer areas often carry the burden

One of the most politically sensitive aspects of the debate is geography.

The latest government figures show that the North East and North West of England had the highest proportions of supported asylum seekers, with 26 and 25 supported asylum seekers respectively for every 10,000 residents.

This feeds directly into the argument made by politicians who say that poorer communities have historically carried a disproportionate share of the responsibility.

The argument is straightforward.

If accommodation is cheaper in economically weaker areas, the asylum system will naturally place more people there.

But that can create a vicious circle.

Areas already experiencing deprivation can face additional pressure on services.

Residents may feel that their communities are being asked to absorb problems created at national level.

And political resentment can grow.

This is why the debate is increasingly shifting from the question of whether Britain should provide asylum accommodation to the question of where that accommodation should be located.

Andy Burnham’s challenge

The issue has become particularly relevant to Andy Burnham, whose government has argued that the burden should be distributed more evenly.

Burnham has called for asylum seekers to be accommodated in more affluent and middle-class communities rather than concentrating them disproportionately in poorer areas.

That argument has considerable political force.

If asylum is a national responsibility, supporters of a more balanced system argue, then it should not effectively become the responsibility of a relatively small number of towns and cities.

The government is also attempting to reduce its reliance on hotels.

At the end of March 2026, the number of asylum seekers in hotels had fallen to 20,885, down 35 per cent from a year earlier and 63 per cent from the peak of 56,018 in September 2023.

That is significant progress.

But the remaining numbers are still substantial.

The hotel problem

Hotels became one of the most visible symbols of Britain’s asylum crisis.

At the height of the accommodation problem, hundreds of hotels were being used.

The government has pledged to end hotel accommodation for asylum seekers by the end of the current Parliament. A parliamentary answer in February 2026 said that fewer than 200 hotels were then being used, compared with around 400 at the peak.

Reducing hotel use has obvious advantages.

Hotels are expensive.

They can disrupt local tourism and hospitality businesses.

They can become flashpoints for protests.

And they are not designed as long-term accommodation for people waiting months or years for decisions.

The government therefore has a strong incentive to move people into more conventional accommodation.

But that creates another problem.

Where do they go?

The accommodation dilemma

Moving asylum seekers out of hotels does not make them disappear.

They still require accommodation while eligible claims are being processed.

If they are moved into houses, flats, former military facilities or other accommodation, the political controversy simply moves with them.

This explains why some local communities have strongly resisted new accommodation centres.

The debate has recently included proposals to accommodate thousands of asylum seekers at former military sites. Reports have described plans involving sites such as Linton-on-Ouse, where local politicians have raised concerns about the scale of the proposed population compared with the size of the surrounding community.

The government’s argument is that large-scale sites can help reduce dependence on expensive hotels.

Opponents respond that concentrating thousands of people in small communities can put enormous pressure on local infrastructure.

Both arguments deserve consideration.

The cost to taxpayers

Money is another major element of the controversy.

At the peak of hotel use, the government was spending millions of pounds each day on asylum accommodation.

The reduction in hotel numbers has therefore produced substantial potential savings.

But accommodation remains expensive.

The government has a statutory duty to provide support to eligible asylum seekers who would otherwise be destitute. That obligation does not disappear simply because hotel accommodation is politically unpopular.

This creates a difficult balance between humanitarian obligations and taxpayers’ concerns.

The government must provide adequate accommodation.

But it must also ensure that the system is efficient and that public money is not wasted.

That is why reducing the asylum backlog is so important.

The backlog is the heart of the problem

Accommodation becomes much more difficult to manage when asylum decisions take too long.

If applications are processed quickly, people who are granted protection can move forward with their lives, while those whose claims are rejected can eventually be removed where legally possible.

When cases remain unresolved for long periods, however, accommodation costs accumulate.

Hotels remain occupied.

Dispersal accommodation remains occupied.

Local authorities continue to manage the consequences.

And public frustration grows.

The government has therefore been trying to speed up asylum decision-making while simultaneously reducing hotel use.

That combination is essential.

Britain is not simply facing an accommodation crisis

The bigger problem is that the asylum debate contains several different issues that are often confused.

There is the number of people crossing the Channel.

There is the number applying for asylum.

There is the number waiting for an initial decision.

There is the number receiving accommodation.

There is the number granted refugee status.

And there is the number whose claims are rejected and who can potentially be removed.

These are not the same populations.

A person arriving in Britain does not automatically become a long-term resident.

Likewise, someone receiving asylum accommodation is not necessarily an illegal migrant.

The legal status of an asylum seeker is different from that of someone who has already received a final refusal and has no remaining legal basis to stay.

Keeping these distinctions clear is essential to any serious debate.

The political opportunity for Reform UK

Nevertheless, the geographical concentration of asylum seekers presents a major political opportunity for Reform UK.

Nigel Farage’s party has made immigration one of its central issues.

Reform can point to communities with large numbers of supported asylum seekers and argue that successive governments have failed to control the system.

The party can also argue that taxpayers are paying for a system that has become too expensive and too slow.

Those arguments are likely to resonate particularly strongly in areas where residents believe public services are already under pressure.

But Reform also faces an important responsibility.

A credible immigration policy must explain not only how to reduce irregular migration but also how Britain would process genuine asylum claims, accommodate vulnerable people and fulfil its legal obligations.

Political slogans are not enough.

Government requires an operational plan.

Labour’s balancing act

For Labour, the challenge is equally difficult.

The government must demonstrate that it can control Britain’s borders without appearing indifferent to people fleeing persecution.

It must reduce accommodation costs without creating humanitarian problems.

It must speed up asylum decisions without compromising fairness.

And it must distribute accommodation more evenly without provoking unnecessary conflict with local communities.

That is an extraordinarily difficult balancing act.

If Labour appears too restrictive, it risks criticism from human-rights organisations.

If it appears too permissive, it risks losing voters concerned about immigration.

If it closes hotels too quickly without sufficient alternatives, it could create another accommodation crisis.

If it moves people into large centres, local protests may intensify.

There is no simple solution.

The map tells only part of the story

The figures nevertheless reveal something important.

Britain’s asylum system is not evenly distributed.

At the end of March 2026, approximately half of Britain’s 361 local authorities had fewer than 100 supported asylum seekers.

That means the burden is concentrated.

And concentration is precisely what has made the issue politically explosive.

A national policy can feel very different at local level.

For Westminster, a few thousand people dispersed across the country may appear manageable.

For a small town receiving hundreds of new residents, the impact can feel enormous.

This is why local consultation matters.

A fairer system?

The most difficult question is therefore what “fairness” actually means.

Should every local authority receive an identical number of asylum seekers?

That would make little practical sense.

A large city with extensive transport, housing and public services may be able to accommodate far more people than a small rural community.

Should distribution instead be based on population?

That may be more logical, but it still ignores housing availability.

Should it be based on deprivation?

That risks placing additional pressure on communities that already have fewer resources.

Should wealthier areas carry more responsibility?

That could improve geographical fairness but may produce intense local opposition.

The answer is probably some combination of these factors.

But it needs to be transparent.

The human dimension

Behind every number on the map is an individual story.

Some asylum seekers have escaped war.

Others have fled persecution.

Some may ultimately receive protection.

Others may have their claims rejected.

They can spend months or even years in uncertainty while their applications are processed.

At the same time, local residents have their own legitimate concerns.

They may be struggling to find affordable housing.

They may be waiting months for medical appointments.

They may be worried about overcrowded schools.

They may feel that their community is being asked to accept decisions made in London without sufficient consultation.

A serious policy must recognise both realities.

The road ahead

Britain’s asylum accommodation system is clearly changing.

Hotel use is falling.

The government is looking for alternative accommodation.

Large-scale sites are being considered.

And ministers are increasingly talking about a more balanced geographical distribution.

The latest figures show that this transition is already underway.

But the political argument is unlikely to disappear.

If anything, it may become more intense as asylum seekers are moved from hotels into communities that have not previously hosted large numbers.

The government will need to communicate much more effectively with local authorities and residents.

It will also need to show that accommodation decisions are based on clear criteria rather than political convenience.

Conclusion: Britain needs control and fairness

The latest asylum figures tell a complicated story.

The number of people receiving asylum support has fallen from its peak.

Hotel use has fallen substantially.

But almost 100,000 people were still receiving asylum support at the end of March 2026, and the distribution remains highly uneven.

Glasgow, Birmingham, Liverpool, Coventry and Belfast stand out among the local authorities with the highest numbers.

Meanwhile, many other areas accommodate far fewer people.

That imbalance is at the heart of the political controversy.

Britain needs an asylum system that is humane, efficient and financially responsible.

It needs decisions to be made quickly.

It needs genuine refugees to receive protection.

It needs people with no legal right to remain to be removed where appropriate and lawful.

And it needs the accommodation burden to be distributed in a way that local communities consider fair.

Above all, the country needs a system that citizens can trust.

Because until that trust is restored, every new map showing asylum hotspots will become another political battleground.

The numbers may be falling—but the argument over where Britain houses asylum seekers is only getting started.